Mary Creagh: Animal feed is one very important part of the food chain, but the focus and function of animals and farms in passing on manure to allotment holders is another vital part of it the food chain. I have been contacted by allotment holders in Wakefield who have had farmers selling them manure that is not pure but has been contaminated with chemicals. What has my right hon. Friend's Department been doing to ensure the minimisation of that and to ensure that people who want to grow their own do not end up with distorted carrots and parsnips?

Hilary Benn: I understand that Bioessence Ltd held pre-application discussions with the Environment Agency last March. It expressed the intention to apply for a permit under the environmental permitting regulations. If it does, there must be statutory consultation, and in the end the Environment Agency decides on applications, either granting the permit with conditions or refusing it. In making any application, an operator needs to cover various matters, including satisfactory environmental management of the installation, adequate monitoring and compliance with EU directives and other requirements. I hope that that offers him and his constituents some reassurance.

James Gray: How much harder will it be to achieve air quality objectives if the 222,000 extra flights a year, which will result from the third runway at Heathrow, go ahead? Will the Secretary of State outline the extent to which he wholeheartedly gives his passionate commitment and support to the third runway at Heathrow?

Greg Hands: The Secretary of State has a reputation for being quietly effective, but he lives in west London so he understands the impact that a 46 per cent. increase in Heathrow capacity will have on the environment of my constituents and those across that area. On Heathrow expansion, has he been defending Londoners at the Cabinet table, or has his reputation for quietness extended to silence on this occasion?

Peter Ainsworth: The answer then is not a lot. Let me join those over in west London who have already done this and ask the Secretary of State how exactly a third runway at Heathrow will help to cut air pollution. Will he confirm that, as a result of the statement that we will hear later today, the Government's decision will cause millions of people to face blight, pollution, deteriorating air quality and noise, will massively affect the natural environment and affect people's well-being? He is the Environment Secretary and we want to hear his view. It is no good hiding behind the latest statement. He has, to his credit, been notably silent in his enthusiasm for expanding Heathrow, but clearly he has little clout. Has he perhaps considered as a last resort joining Airplot, the organisation that is safeguarding land at the airport? That might be his only way of getting a share of the action.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend for her warm words about what was a tough but good outcome from the fisheries negotiations. I am pleased that last year we launched the EFF, with £100 million to UK fisheries right across the UK to improve their sustainability. I will be working alongside others, including Scottish fisheries colleagues and the Scottish Executive, to ensure that there is good use of those funds to support the sustainable use of fisheries. To echo her comments, I am particularly pleased that as part of the negotiations we managed to save the livelihoods of people on the west coast of Scotland.

Alistair Carmichael: If ever there were an issue where good, effective working relations between the Minister and Richard Lochhead in Edinburgh were so important, this is surely it. However, may I urge the Minister to remain engaged with the fishing industry itself as the new technical measures are rolled out? He will be aware that serious concerns were expressed by those parts of the fleet that operated on the west of Scotland about the suitability of some of the early measures. Those concerns must not be forgotten now that the deal is done.

Water Charges

David Drew: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply—obviously, I heard the exchange on Question 3, from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). Strong representations are being made and it would be good to hear whether they are reaching the Minister's door. The problem has been around for 10 years—I read a debate from 1999 in which the current Home Secretary raised the issue of the potential fallout from changes in water charges. Is it not about time that we told Ofwat that its proposals are wrong, and that organisations should be properly protected from such excessive increases?

Huw Irranca-Davies: As the hon. Gentleman knows, elements of water in Wales are devolved, but the regulatory regime remains with Westminster. On that basis, I am more than happy to meet him to discuss the matter at the earliest opportunity.

Hilary Benn: Yes, I certainly will, because as my hon. Friend rightly points out, air quality limits are currently being exceeded in several parts of the country. The principal problem is road traffic, and we set out the steps we propose to take in the air quality strategy published last year. I have already pointed out to the House that we will very probably have to apply to the Commission for further time to meet the targets; if it is to grant us further time, we will have to set out to its satisfaction in those applications the further steps we intend to take to meet the targets. This is a responsibility on the Government, and I take it very seriously, but it is also a responsibility on those who can influence questions of traffic management in our big towns and cities across the country.

David Taylor: The Secretary of State is known for not being swayed by passion, and for being an open-minded man who is happy to rely on science and his advisers. The Environment Agency has said that the third Heathrow runway would fail EU pollution limits because of unsafe nitrogen dioxide levels. How is it right—or how would it be right, to use the correct tense—for such advice to be discarded in a cavalier and cursory fashion?

Hilary Benn: I am certainly not in favour of discarding any advice in a cavalier fashion. I say once again to the House—I am sure my hon. Friend will listen very carefully to this—that the Government are determined that we will meet the air quality and noise targets that we have set, and which would be a condition on any expansion of Heathrow. People will be able to make a judgment about whether they think that condition has been met when they hear what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport says shortly.

Hilary Benn: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that, in relation to nitrogen dioxide and Heathrow, the principal problem is road traffic, not aircraft movements. Therefore, what happens on the M4 and other roads in that area has a significant impact. We have not yet applied for that derogation. We are likely to do so first in relation to PM10, because we should have achieved the targets by 2005—many other member states have not—and it is possible to allow for extra time until 2011. In relation to nitrogen dioxide, the date for achieving the target is 2010; we are not going to do so for the reasons I have set out, and the derogation would extend that to 2015. The hon. Gentleman is right that the Government will have to set out to the satisfaction of the Commission that we have a credible plan for dealing with that. We will have to do so in relation to all the sites where there is a problem, including Heathrow, but as I hope he is aware, Heathrow does not present the biggest problem, because those limits are exceeded by a greater margin in other locations around the country.

Vera Baird: The Coroners and Justice Bill, which was introduced to the House yesterday, will allow into evidence as of right, as it were, records of first interviews with complainants of serious sexual offences. That will avoid their having to go through the whole story again from the start in court. It will also allow in evidence from the first time that they complain of an alleged offence. Historically, complaints have only been allowed in when they have been made quickly after the incident, but now the courts recognise that it often takes time before a complainant can bring themselves to complain. We have also increased the number of sexual assault referral centres and the number of independent sexual violence advisers, who, in their different ways, befriend and support rape complainants.

Theresa May: First, may I take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) back to his role? The Leader of the House has received numerous requests for a debate in Government time on Zimbabwe. The situation there continues to worsen, and the fact that it is not on our television screens does not mean that it should be out of our thoughts. Will the Leader of the House commit to a debate to give all Members the opportunity to speak on this devastating and pressing issue?
	After months of delay, the Transport Secretary will finally make a statement on Heathrow to the House today. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said:
	"There will be a debate about what he says".—[ Official Report, 14 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 212.]
	I understand that the Prime Minister is to meet Labour Back Benchers after the statement has been made, but Members from all sides would welcome the opportunity for a debate, particularly as so many have signed early-day motion 339.
	 [That  this House notes the Government' s commitment given in the 2003 Aviation White Paper, The Future of Air Transport to reduce noise impacts and to ensure that air quality and environmental standards are met before proceeding with a third runway at Heathrow Airport; further notes the assurance given by the Prime Minister on 12 November 2008 that support for a third runway at Heathrow is subject to strict environmental conditions; further notes that Heathrow Airport is already in breach of the European Air Quality Directive to be implemented by 2010; welcomes the statement by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that these environmental commitments should be honoured; supports the Chairman of the Environmen t Agency' s decision to oppose the third runway on environmental grounds; and calls upon the Government not to proceed with the third Heathrow runway or mixed-mode and to put the matter to a vote on the floor of the House.]
	Will the Leader of the House confirm when we will have a debate on Heathrow, and when all Members, on both sides of the House, will have the opportunity to question the Prime Minister on the issue?
	The Leader of the House will also know that 85 Members have signed early-day motion 428 on Royal Mail.
	 [That this House notes that the Labour Party Conference 2008, with the backing of Ministers, supported a vision of a wholly publicly-owned, integrated Royal Mail Group; welcomes the conclusion of the Hooper Report that the current universal service obligation offered by Royal Mail, including six days a week delivery, must be protected and that the primary duty of a new regulator should be to maintain it; further welcomes the recommendations in the Report that the Government should take responsibility for the pensions deficit which followed an extended contributions holiday; endorses the call for a new relationship between management and postal unions and welcomes the commitment of the Communication Workers Union to negotiate an agreement which would support the modernisation of the industry; observes that in 2007 the Government agreed to a £1.2 billion loan facility on commercial terms to modernise Royal Mail operations; rejects the recommendation of the Hooper Report to sell a minority stake in Royal Mail which would risk fracturing one of Britain' s greatest public services; further notes that the Government is currently advertising for a new Chair of Royal Mail; and urges the Secretary of State to appoint a Chair and management team who are committed to the principles of a modern public enterprise.]
	May we have a debate in Government time on the future of Royal Mail, so that Members can discuss the Government's part-privatisation plans?
	Official figures show that 100,000 pupils educated entirely under a Labour Government failed to attain at least one GCSE at grade C or above. That is an appalling record, particularly for a party that promised it was all about education, education, education. May we have a debate in Government time on what Ministers intend to do before it is too late for the next generation of schoolchildren?
	The Leader of the House has made her commitment to protecting the primacy of this House clear, when it comes to announcements of Government policy. On 10 January 2008, she said:
	"I take the matter very seriously. I agree that it is important that Ministers are answerable to this House rather than the media."—[ Official Report, 10 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 538.]
	Yesterday's statement by the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Ian Pearson), on the loan guarantee scheme was leaked to the BBC on Tuesday and was followed by media interviews with Ministers yesterday morning, and it was briefed in a press conference by Lord Mandelson. An oral statement was made in the House only because Mr. Speaker granted our request for an urgent question. While the country is recession, not only is the Business Secretary not answerable to the House but there are four Business Ministers in the Lords and only one Minister solely from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform in the Commons, which makes a mockery of the Prime Minister's pledge to strengthen Parliament. What is the Leader of the House going to do to ensure that announcements are made to the Commons so that Members can ask questions on behalf of their constituents?
	Eighteen months ago, the Prime Minister said that all Ministers' relevant financial interests would be released
	"to ensure proper scrutiny of ministerial conduct".
	Yesterday, he said:
	"If it has not been done, it will be done."—[ Official Report, 14 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 211.]
	Will the Leader of the House tell us when that report will be published, and will she also confirm that the delay was caused by Lord Mandelson's "complicated" interests.
	Finally, yesterday, the Business Minister, Baroness Vadera, said that she could see "a few green shoots" of recovery in the economy. That was on the very same day that Barclays announced that it was cutting 2,100 UK jobs, a further 800 jobs went at Jaguar Land Rover and the music chain, Zavvi, and Grattan announced that 3,500 jobs were at risk. What on earth was the Business Minister thinking, and do her comments not show the Government and their Ministers are completely out of touch?

Harriet Harman: The shadow Leader of the House asks for a further debate on Zimbabwe. Members on both sides of the House are well aware how dire the situation is, and that it is deteriorating. I shall continue to look for an opportunity to debate Zimbabwe on the Floor of the House.
	The right hon. Lady asks about the process following the forthcoming decision about Heathrow and the third runway. As she knows, there will be a statement by the Secretary of State for Transport, but the process thereafter is contingent on what he announces, so I shall not seek to pre-empt him by saying what it will be after the decision. That is a matter for hon. Members to put to him when he has given his substantive decision.
	The Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs made a statement to the House on the future of the Royal Mail, bringing the House up to date and allowing it an opportunity to hold Ministers accountable. He reaffirmed our commitment to universal postal services, and the fact that we shall ensure that Royal Mail keeps its commitment to fulfil its pension liabilities. He reported, too, on the Hooper review and on our response to it. The proposals ensure that we keep our pension commitments, that we keep a universal postal service, that we have better regulation to allow Royal Mail to thrive in future, and that go into a partnership with a minority stake held by a private partner. The proposals were put into the public domain in an oral statement to the House, and they are open to discussion. It is up to the Opposition if, the week after next, they would like that to choose that as the topic of their Opposition debate.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned educational outcomes for children in this country. We are very proud indeed that, after investment in education, far more and better-paid teachers in our schools, higher valuation of education, more capital investment, and rebuilding our schools, the number of children attaining five A to C GCSEs has gone up from 45 per cent. in 1997 to 64 per cent. We intend to continue that investment and to make further progress.
	The right hon. Member for Maidenhead spoke of the statement on the four-point plan to help businesses with credit lines. The whole House will be aware that the development of our plans has been ongoing: there have been announcements, debates, oral statements and responses by the Prime Minister and other Ministers to parliamentary questions. I am well aware that we need to make sure that the House is kept fully up to speed and that hon. Members have an opportunity to ask questions. Indeed, when I stood in for the Prime Minister at oral questions in December I talked about the plans that we were developing for helping businesses with their credit lines.
	We want to strike the right balance between coming to the House with our plans and making sure that they are announced. This House, of course, has primacy and I have drawn up a list of all the occasions since October when hon. Members have been able to take part in topical debates, general debates and Opposition day debates on these matters. There have also been statements—on the G20, for example—as well as the pre-Budget report and the emergency debate on the economy. In addition, the Chancellor has given evidence to the Treasury Committee and we had the Queen's Speech debate on the economy. I undertake to write to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead to remind her of just how much accountability to the House there has been in respect of the very important priority that we should all give to the economy and to providing help for business.
	The right hon. Lady asked when the Register of Ministers' Interests will be brought forward. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, it will be brought forward as soon as it is complete.
	The right hon. Lady asked about Baroness Vadera, who is a highly professional, dedicated and effective member of the ministerial team at the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. I would say that five minutes of Baroness Vadera's time is worth a lifetime of the judgments of the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow Chancellor. In our ministerial team we have serious people for serious times, and I welcome the arrival in our team of Mervyn Davies.

David Heath: It is all downhill from here.
	The noble Baroness Vadera has one facet that the Leader of the House did not mention—she is unelected. We have got ourselves into a constitutional muddle on this issue, as I shall make clear. The junior Minister in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform was dragged to this House yesterday to make a statement and then, rather lamely, the Secretary of State who made the decision was able to make a statement four hours later in another place. I gather that another banker is being added to the ministerial team, but he too will be in the other place.
	That is the constitutional problem, so will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on how, in this economic crisis, we make sure that key ministerial posts are filled by people who are properly answerable to this House? They are dealing with important economic matters but at the moment they answer to a House that is not supposed, constitutionally, to consider public finances. We are the elected House, and this is where such debates should happen.
	May we have an urgent statement on the response to the High Court decision on the rights of Gurkhas to settle in Britain? Many people, myself included, feel that those brave men have been treated shamefully by this country. We have been waiting for a Government response since September, and we need a debate on the matter. Can the Leader of the House also deny categorically the report in one newspaper that the Brigade of Gurkhas is to be disbanded?
	I guess I have to declare an interest in Heathrow as I am now a landowner—of a very, very small portion of land in the path of the new Heathrow runway. The Prime Minister promised us a debate. The Leader of the House does not have to be so coy about whether there will be a debate. The Prime Minister promised a debate in the House, and every indication is that the majority of Members want the opportunity to vote against what we expect to be announced shortly on Heathrow. This, again, is a constitutional issue. If most of the House want to have the opportunity to debate the matter and have a substantive motion to vote on, we should have one.
	Lastly, I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Lady regularly reads the  Almaty Herald or  Kazakhstan s kaya Pravda, but if she does she may have picked up a headline along the lines, "Prime Minister tells Ministers to answer questions". Prime Minister Karim Masimov of Kazakhstan said:
	"I order all Ministers to start personal blogs where people will be able to ask you questions that you must answer."
	I am not sure about the blogs, but would it not be an excellent precedent for this country as well if Ministers actually answered the questions that they are asked?

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She will have heard me announce that on the Order Paper next Thursday there will be a statutory instrument on freedom of information, followed by motions. The draft statutory instrument is in the Table Office and the motions are on the Order Paper. What I, as Leader of the House, aim to achieve by next Thursday's business is to ensure that in respect of allowances paid to Members of Parliament, which is public money, the public can be certain that there is a clear and reasonable set of rules against which money is paid out, that there is a proper audit system to make sure that those rules are obeyed, that the amount is paid under clear headings for each individual Member of Parliament every year and is made public, that it is proportionate and affordable, and that all this is done at a reasonable cost.
	That is what we are proposing in a statutory instrument and a series of motions next week. Hon. Members will see that whereas in the past we have published about 13 information headings, the combination of the statutory instrument and the motion that I will put before the House will mean that the public instead have 26 categories of information. The public will have more information than they have ever had before and we will take that back to 2005, so that for all Members since they have been in the House each year their allowances against 26 headings will be made public. We want to make sure that the public have confidence that there are clear rules and that they know what is going on.

Richard Ottaway: When the Green Book was last debated in July, a rather bizarre and unnoticed resolution went through linking capital gains tax to the additional costs allowance. There was no word of debate about it, it was completely misunderstood by the House, and it is unworkable and almost certainly unenforceable. May I suggest that next Thursday a further resolution is tabled saying that the original resolution does not come into effect until there is further debate and consideration of the matter?

Madeleine Moon: May we have a debate on consumer protection? If someone buys a faulty pair of shoes, they can take them back. If they buy a faulty large electrical item from a company such as Comet, they are required to make themselves available for four hours so that the company can remove the faulty equipment that it has delivered. Is it not time that we looked at how we protect hard-working families who cannot take such time out and whose e-mails and letters are ignored? Should the onus not be on the company putting the issue right, rather than on the consumer's being available at the company's behest?

Geoff Hoon: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's plans for Britain's transport infrastructure.
	Effective transport links are vital to our economic competitiveness and our daily lives. Britain's prosperity is increasingly defined by the quality of its links to other great trading nations, by the way in which we move people and goods around the country, and by our ability to meet the needs of businesses for gateways to the global economy and to enable people to see their families and friends and go on holiday.
	As the economic downturn demonstrates, we live in a global age. It is critical that the Government should make the tough choices necessary to deliver long-term prosperity for the United Kingdom—but in a way that meets our environmental objectives. In that context of sustainable economic growth, I want to set out a package of transport investments to prepare us for an ever more global and mobile world.
	Over the past decade, we have delivered a £150 billion investment in transport—more than £13 billion this year alone—and we have announced that we will bring forward an extra £1 billion to stimulate the economy by accelerating our plans to cut congestion and increase rail capacity significantly. Over this current three-year period, we are spending around £40 billion, ensuring that investment on transport is at its highest for 30 years as a proportion of national income.
	I should first like to update the House on our plans for the road and rail infrastructure and carbon dioxide emissions from transport, before turning to aviation and, in particular, Heathrow. I am placing in the Libraries of both Houses relevant papers setting out the proposals in more detail. At the conclusion of my statement, copies will be available in the Vote Office and on the Department's website.
	Motorways are essential for enabling people and goods to move around the country. Successful trials on the M42 have enabled us safely to open up motorway hard shoulders in peak periods, delivering more reliable journey times and adding a third more capacity at peak times—and all delivered at a lower cost than a more conventional road-widening scheme. After further detailed work, I can announce today a programme of up to £6 billion which includes applying those techniques to some of the most congested parts of the M1, M25, M6, M62, the M3 and M4 approaching London, and the motorways around Manchester, Birmingham and Bristol. This is the first step in our strategy to provide for managed motorways across the core of the motorway network, linking our major cities over the next 10 to 15 years and reducing congestion, with fewer environmental impacts than conventional motorway widening.
	We are already investing £10 billion in the railways over the next five years, to add capacity while improving reliability and safety. However, given the time that it takes to plan and build new rail infrastructure, we need to look well beyond 2014. Electrification is advantageous on heavily used parts of the rail network. Electric trains are lighter, accelerate faster, are quieter and emit less carbon dioxide. We are well advanced in procuring replacement trains for the inter-city routes, but before we finalise our plans we need to decide whether new parts of the network should be electrified.
	Initial work suggests that the case for electrification appears strongest on the most heavily used parts of the Great Western main line from Paddington and the midland main line north of Bedford. Alongside the work on our new inter-city trains, we will analyse the value for money, affordability and financing options of the electrification proposals that Network Rail will put to me shortly. I intend to make a further statement later this year.
	Because of the need to plan for the long term, I can also announce that I am today forming a new company, High Speed 2, to consider the case for new high-speed rail services from London to Scotland. As a first stage, we have asked the company to develop a proposal for an entirely new line between London and the west midlands; that would enable faster journeys to other destinations in the north of England and Scotland, using both existing lines and a new high-speed rail network.
	Our experience with Crossrail and the channel tunnel rail link has demonstrated that advance detailed planning is required to progress such major infrastructure schemes. The purpose of the new company will be to advise Ministers on the feasibility and credibility of a new line, with specific route options and financing proposals. Sir David Rowlands will chair the company in the interim. I see a strong case for this new line approaching London via a Heathrow international hub station on the Great Western line, to provide a direct four-way interchange between the airport, the new north-south line, existing Great Western rail services and Crossrail, into the heart of London. My intention is that by the end of this year the company will have advised us on the most promising route, or routes, with their individual costs and benefits.
	In the 2003 air transport White Paper, the Government set out their support—in principle—for a third runway at Heathrow airport: that support was conditional on any development meeting strict local environmental conditions. Heathrow airport supports more than 100,000 British jobs. A third runway is forecast to create up to 8,000 new on-site jobs by 2030 and will provide further employment benefits to the surrounding area. Its construction alone would provide up to 60,000 jobs. But, more significantly for businesses across the United Kingdom, Heathrow is the only hub airport—it is our most important international gateway. It serves destinations that none of our other airports serve, and it provides more frequent services to key international destinations such as Mumbai and Beijing. It connects us to the growth markets of the future—essential for every great trading nation. In doing so, it benefits every region of the United Kingdom. But Heathrow is now operating at around 99 per cent. of its maximum capacity, leading to delays and constraints on future economic growth. Heathrow is already losing ground to international hub airports in other competitor countries. This makes the UK a progressively less attractive place for mobile international businesses. Delays damage the efficiency of the airport, but they also cause unnecessary carbon dioxide emissions as up to four stacks of aircraft circle London waiting to land.
	The Government remain convinced, therefore, that additional capacity at Heathrow is critical to this country's long-term economic prosperity. We consulted in November 2007 on three options for providing additional capacity, and on whether the environmental conditions could be met. We received nearly 70,000 replies. I have now considered the responses and reached my conclusions. Two of the options would use the existing runways for both arrivals and take-offs, otherwise known as mixed mode. This would improve resilience, reduce delays and has the potential also to provide early additional capacity. It is clear from the consultation, however, that residents under the flight paths greatly value the present alternation of runway operations at around 3 pm, which gives them respite from overhead aircraft noise for at least eight hours a day. Having carefully considered the evidence, including from the consultation, I have decided not to proceed with mixed mode. I have also decided to extend the benefits of runway alternation to those affected by aircraft taking off and landing when the wind is blowing from the east. I will therefore end the Cranford agreement, which generally prohibits easterly take-offs on the northern runway. This will benefit the residents of Windsor and others to the west of the airport, and Hatton and north Feltham to the east. I support the continuation of the other operating procedures as set out in the consultation.
	This leaves the question of a third runway. Let me first explain my conclusions, in the light of the conditions on noise, air quality and surface access set out in the 2003 White Paper. In 1974, some 2 million people around Heathrow were affected by average levels of noise at or above 57 dB. By 2002, that number had reduced to 258,000 people as the result of significant improvements in aircraft technology. In the White Paper, the Government committed not to enlarge the area within which average noise exceeded 57 dB. In the light of all the evidence, including from the consultation, I have decided that this condition can be met, even with a third runway. Indeed, because newer aircraft are quieter, the numbers of people within the 57 dB contour by 2020 is expected to fall by a further 15,000 from 2002, even with more aircraft movements in 2020. And the number of people affected by higher levels of noise is expected to fall even more significantly: for example, a 68 per cent. reduction—more than 20,000 fewer people—in the number of those affected by noise averaging 66 dB and above.
	On air quality, the Government are committed to meeting our EU obligations. The relevant pollutant at Heathrow is nitrogen dioxide, for which the EU has set a 2010 target of an annual average of no more than 40 micrograms per cubic metre. As with most other major European economies, the UK does not yet fully comply with this limit, largely as a result of emissions from motor vehicles. The area around Heathrow is by no means the worst example in the country, and the limit is currently exceeded in a number of places in the UK, in most cases by more than near Heathrow. Meeting EU air quality targets is an issue that must to be addressed right across the United Kingdom, not simply around Heathrow airport. The European Commission has agreed that member states could be allowed an extension to 2015 if member states can show that they have plans in place to meet the targets. This presents a significant challenge, but I am committed to supporting the actions, mainly in relation to motor vehicle emissions, necessary to achieve it. Immediately around Heathrow, action will be necessary to ensure that we meet the air quality limits by 2015. Our forecasts predict that, in any event, we will be meeting the limits by 2020 even with airport expansion.
	Usually these decisions would be taken on the basis of forward projections and modelling. To reinforce our commitments on noise and air quality, I have decided, however, that additional flights could be allowed only when the independent Civil Aviation Authority is satisfied, first, that the noise and air quality conditions have already been met—the air quality limit is already statutory, and we will also give the noise limits legal force—and secondly, that any additional capacity will not compromise the legal air quality and noise limits. We will give the CAA a new statutory environmental duty to ensure that it acts in the interests of the environment in addition to its existing obligations and duties, and that it follows guidance from myself and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Energy and Climate Change. Moreover, in the event that air quality or noise limits were breached, the independent regulators would have a legal duty and the necessary powers to take the action—or require others to take it—needed to come back into compliance. In the case of noise, the matter would be for the CAA. In the case of air quality, where emissions from roads and rail around Heathrow also need to be considered, the Environment Agency will act as the enforcement body, with appropriate guidance from Ministers.
	The third local condition for expansion for Heathrow was the provision of adequate public transport. Major improvements in rail access have already been announced, including increases in capacity on the Piccadilly line and the introduction of Crossrail services from 2017. This will provide a maximum capacity of 6,000 passengers per hour, which will be able to accommodate the estimated demand for rail access to a three-runway airport. The Government also welcome the lead being taken by BAA to promote the Airtrack project providing direct rail access to the airport at terminal 5 from the south and west. The Department will work with BAA and Network Rail to consider this and other schemes to improve connections from Heathrow to places such as Waterloo and Guildford, Reading and other stations on the Great Western main line.
	Having considered all the evidence, I have decided that all three of the Government's conditions for supporting a third runway at Heathrow can be met. I can therefore confirm that an additional terminal and the slightly longer runway proposed in the consultation are the best way to maximise the efficiency of a larger airport. However, I want there to be a limit on the initial use of the third runway so that the increase in aircraft movements does not exceed 125,000 a year rather than—at this stage—allowing the full additional 222,000 aircraft movements on which we consulted. I have also decided that any additional capacity available on the third runway will, after consultation, be subject to a new "green slot" principle to incentivise the use at Heathrow of the most modern aircraft, with further benefits for air quality and noise—and, indeed, carbon dioxide emissions.
	It is of course crucial for transport, including aviation, to play its full part in meeting our goal to limit carbon dioxide emissions. As a result of UK leadership on aviation emissions in particular, carbon dioxide emissions from international aviation were included in the EU's 20 per cent. greenhouse gas reduction target for 2020, agreed by the Prime Minister with other European leaders in December last year. Under the EU emissions trading scheme, this reduction will occur whether or not Heathrow is expanded. With a fixed cap for aviation across Europe, doing nothing at Heathrow would allow extra capacity at other hub airports such as Frankfurt, Schiphol and Charles de Gaulle. Doing nothing will damage our economy and have no impact on climate change. The framework for reducing emissions across the EU covers international aviation and all sectors of each member state's domestic economy. This includes emissions from domestic transport within the UK. The Government have already made it clear that they will respond to the advice of the Committee on Climate Change on carbon budgets, taking into account aviation, and we will set our carbon budgets later this year. Those budgets will reflect the measures in the EU 2020 package, such as tough new limits on emissions from new cars.
	To reinforce the delivery of carbon dioxide savings, and to lay the ground for greater savings beyond 2020, I am announcing today funding of £250 million to promote the take-up, and commercialisation within the UK, of ultra low-emission road vehicles. With road transport emissions so much greater than those of aviation, even a relatively modest take-up of electric vehicles beyond 2020 could, on its own, match all the additional carbon dioxide generated by the expansion of Heathrow.
	However, action in relation to domestic transport is not sufficient. We need to take the same tough approach to aviation emissions as we are in relation to other transport emissions. Having taken the lead in promoting the inclusion of aviation in the EU emissions trading scheme, the Government will be pressing hard for international aviation to be part of the global deal on climate change at Copenhagen later this year. I have asked the Committee on Climate Change to report back later this year on the best way in which such a deal for aviation could be structured.
	I can announce my intention to promote an international agreement to secure the same kind of progressively stricter limits on carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft as are already in place for cars within the EU. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), has been in Tokyo this week setting that out to a meeting of G7 Transport Ministers. However, I want to go further. Work published by the aviation industry illustrates how it could reduce UK emissions below 2005 levels by 2050. That could include the use of new technologies such as blended wings and the sustainable introduction of renewable fuels. I can announce that we will establish a new target to get aviation emissions in 2050 below 2005 levels, and I have asked the Committee on Climate Change to advise on the best basis for its development.
	The Government will monitor carefully the emissions from aviation, with the help of the Committee on Climate Change. Any future capacity increases at Heathrow beyond the decision that I have announced today will be approved by the Government only after a review by the Committee on Climate Change in 2020 of whether we are on track to achieve the 2050 target that I have announced.
	We are effectively taking three steps to limit any increase in carbon dioxide emissions. First, we are limiting the initial extra capacity to around half of what was originally proposed. Secondly, we intend that new slots at Heathrow will have to be green slots. Only the cleanest planes will be allowed to use the new slots that will be made available. Thirdly, we will establish a new target to limit aviation emissions in the UK to below 2005 levels by 2050. Taken together, that gives us the toughest climate change regime for aviation of any country in the world, which gives Ministers the confidence that we will achieve our 80 per cent. emissions reduction target. In addition, we will make it one of our highest priorities to secure international agreement on measures to reduce aviation emissions.
	The airport clearly needs new capacity as soon as possible to reduce delays and improve resilience. Since I am not willing to allow the two existing runways to operate on mixed mode, I anticipate that the airport operator will bring forward a planning application for a new runway to be operational early in the period envisaged in the White Paper, between 2015 and 2020.
	The parallel review of the economic regulation of airports is focusing on how best to improve the passenger experience and encourage investment. In the regulatory framework that results from that work, I expect the first call on new capacity to be ensuring that journeys are more reliable for existing passengers. We will therefore have a better airport.
	These announcements on transport infrastructure, on motorways, on railways, on Heathrow, and on carbon reductions from transport show the Government taking the right decisions for the long term. We are delivering real help with job creation today, creating real hope for Britain's long-term growth prospects, and giving real help in securing carbon reductions, real help for rail passengers and real help in increasing the long-term competitiveness of the UK economy by creating excellent transport links to the global economy, ensuring that this country remains an attractive place in which to do business. I commend this statement to the House.

Theresa Villiers: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, but frankly, if this is the result of the great row in the Cabinet, his colleagues did not get a very good deal out of it. Let us be in no doubt: this is a bleak day for our environment and for all those of us who care about safeguarding it. Labour's plans for a third runway at Heathrow would inflict devastating damage on the environment and on quality of life, and the Conservatives will fight them every step of the way.
	I begin with the Secretary of State's commitment to restrict the initial use of the runway, and that at this stage he would give the go-ahead only for 125,000 more flights, rather than 222,000. When does he propose to lift that cap? How long is that tenuous guarantee going to last?
	The Secretary of State has admitted again today that Heathrow is already in breach of the rules in the EU air quality directive, which will become binding in a year's time. Will he explain how an airport with a massive increase in flights and car journeys to support another 55 million passengers can possibly comply with the directive? Why does he continue to be deaf to the Environment Agency's warning that pollution from a third runway will increase the risk of serious illness and early death around the airport?
	Is the Secretary of State concerned that in the debate in the House last year, Members from as far apart as Reading and Greenwich expressed concern about the impact on their constituents of aircraft noise from Heathrow at its present size? Is it not recklessly irresponsible to compound an already serious problem with a new flight path over a densely populated area?
	I welcome the Secretary of State's apparent retreat on mixed mode. He says that he will not proceed with it, but again, how long will that guarantee last? How long will residents have that protection?
	The Secretary of State claims that only low-emission planes will be allowed to use the new slots generated by a third runway. Which planes will qualify for the green slots that he talked about? Will he admit that there are no planes on the market that are clean or quiet enough to meet the environmental promises that he has already made, never mind the vague pledges on green slots that we have heard today? Will he admit that his Department's expectation of future compliance with the environmental preconditions depends heavily on fantasy green planes that no manufacturer has plans to produce?
	The Secretary of State's apparent conversion to high-speed rail gives us little more than warm words and the possibility of a link to Birmingham. Why does he still refuse to accept that high-speed rail could provide an alternative to a third runway by providing an alternative to thousands of short-haul flights? Why will he not admit that the economic arguments for a third runway have been conclusively rebutted, and that there is no convincing evidence that Heathrow will go into a spiral of decline without major expansion?
	Frankly, no one believes what the Secretary of State has to say about a limit of 125,000 flights. How does he propose to reconcile a massive increase in flights every year, the equivalent of bolting on to Heathrow a new airport the size of Gatwick, with Labour's legally binding commitment to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent.? Does he really want his political legacy to be the bulldozers rolling out to construct a runway to blight the lives of millions, when instead he could have gone down in history as the man who finally put the brakes on the relentless outward expansion of Heathrow, and demonstrated that the political class has at last woken up to the compelling urgency of climate change?
	The Secretary of State has given us assurances on flight caps, on green slots and on a 2050 date for restricting aviation emissions, but the Government's credibility is wholly undermined by their record. They have made every effort to dodge their environmental promises by reverse-engineering the data to get the answers that they wanted. They are seeking a derogation from the EU air quality rules, which are a fundamental pillar of Labour's environmental safeguards. They are the Government who were pushing to lift the terminal 5 flight cap less than a year after the right hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers) stood at the Dispatch Box and pledged to impose it. They are in disarray over Heathrow, their consultation has been a sham and their aviation White Paper is no longer fit for purpose.
	The world has moved on when it comes to Heathrow, but Labour just has not moved with it. The Government are on the wrong side of the argument and their environmental credibility is in tatters. It is time for Labour to scrap its plans for a third runway. If it will not do that, it is time for it to call a general election so that the country can elect a Conservative Government who will prevent this environmental disaster from going ahead.

Geoff Hoon: I do not agree with the comments of the Mayor of London about developing an estuary airport, but it is significant that his approach recognises the requirement for extra capacity for Heathrow. Although I disagree with his conclusion, at least he recognises the problem that the country and its businesses face. He said:
	"The reality is that this recession will end, and when it ends we need to be able to compete in the long term with other capitals whose main airports have four, five or even six runways."
	I do not often cite the Mayor of London with approval, but he acknowledges the problem. He has not avoided the issue for a short-term party political advantage—an advantage that Conservative Front Benchers believe that they might gain through putting their political interests ahead of this country's interests.
	The hon. Lady also persists in her absurd argument that we should somehow choose between expanding aviation and rail capacity. Her policy was nonsense when she originally announced it, and it remains nonsense. Richard Lambert, director general of the CBI, said:
	"A high-speed rail link would have a lot going for it, but don't think for a minute that it will solve the capacity problems at Heathrow."
	That is exactly the problem that Conservative Front Benchers have consistently failed to address. I have always been a strong supporter of our railways and I firmly believe that we should accelerate work on new high-speed links. We have put in place the mechanisms for determining that in a practical way, both financially and in terms of the required structures, unlike the policy that was cobbled together on the back of some envelope in the hon. Lady's office.
	Let me be clear: a new line would be complementary to expansion at Heathrow, not an alternative. That is why I have asked for the development of plans for a Heathrow interchange station. It is all very well for the hon. Lady to complain that she supports those plans, but she neglected to explain how she would pay for the new transport projects that she announced. The Leader of the Opposition has proposed cuts of some £840 million in the next year alone. It is simply not credible for Conservative Front Benchers to talk about extra investment in new transport infrastructure without saying where the cuts that they propose will happen. They cannot guarantee a single transport project, not even Crossrail, while they consider such massive cuts in the transport budget. We have not heard a single word from Conservative Front Benchers about the projects that they will cut. They cannot be taken seriously on transport when they consider such cuts in the budget that is already available.
	The country clearly faces a choice about Heathrow and transport investment. It can make a choice for the future—for jobs, British business and our international competitiveness. Hon. Members can decide which side they are on. I know on which side I am, and on which side the Government are.

Norman Baker: Perhaps the Secretary of State could place his written answers to questions in the Library. I declare an interest as the beneficial owner of a very small, recently acquired piece of land at Sipson.
	The decision to proceed with the third runway is the worst environmental decision that the Government have made in 11 years. It drives a jumbo jet through their Climate Change Act 2008, on which the ink is barely dry. With a commitment to a reduction of 80 per cent. in carbon emissions, how can the Secretary of State and his colleagues possibly justify the construction of a new runway? It is also one of the worst political decisions in 11 years, on a par with that on the millennium dome. It has huge opposition in the Labour party, and has united the opposition in the House and in the country and destroyed the Government's green credentials. I make it plain that the Liberal Democrat manifesto will include a commitment to reverse the decision. That is not insignificant given the likely arithmetic in the next House of Commons.
	Will there be a vote in the House in Government time on the matter? Will we be allowed to make a democratic decision? If the Government were defeated—I believe that they would be—would the Secretary of State accept the democratic will of the House and abandon his plans?
	Yesterday, the Prime Minister promised a planning inquiry into the third runway proposal. Will that be a proper inquiry in traditional planning terms, or will it be held by his new puppet body, the Infrastructure Planning Commission? If the latter is the case, when will the Secretary of State bring the relevant national policy statements before the House?
	The promises about Heathrow are not worth the paper they are written on. Time and again, the Government and previous Governments have broken them. For example, when terminal 5 was approved, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet agreed that a third runway would be "totally unacceptable". Are not Government promises about Heathrow akin to a pledge from a fox not to harm chickens?
	The Secretary of State said that additional flights would occur only if air quality limits were already fulfilled. The following page of his statement gives an indication of the number of flights that will take place. Does he seriously want us to believe that, if a runway is built, it will not be used? Does he expect us to believe that more weight will be given to a target that he sets than to a concrete runway? If the runway is built, it will be used, irrespective of any promises he makes today about air pollution. The effect of the green slot principle will simply be to concentrate dirtier planes on runways 1 and 2. It will make no difference to the type of plane used generally at Heathrow.
	Has the Secretary of State received confirmation from the CAA that the extra flights can be safely accommodated?
	The Secretary of State's comments on rail have been cobbled together at the last minute in a desperate attempt to sugar the poison pill of a third runway. No commitments to high-speed rail have been made today. He said that he will establish a company to "consider the case." The case has been made—Network Rail has already done a great deal of work on it. We are simply kicking high-speed rail into the long grass again in an attempt to find something that will make the third runway at Heathrow sound palatable today.
	It is a terrible day for the environment and for the Secretary of State and his colleagues in government. However, the opposition in the House and in the country is such that the third runway will not be built.

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry that the House had to listen to that tirade of observations, which did not deal with any of the issues, but I suppose we get used to that from the Liberal Democrats. The party is not back to the future but back to the past.
	It is a great shame that the hon. Gentleman could not address the issues that we must tackle. He concluded—sadly like Conservative Front Benchers—that his party is prepared to put the British economy's long-term competitiveness second to that of European countries with hub airports. That is the reality of both parties' policies. They say that, through the European trading scheme, they will allow other airports, which compete directly with Heathrow, to expand at the expense of this country. That is already happening. I can demonstrate that to him and send him the statistics, if he needs them and is interested in the facts. Continental hub airports already provide the capacity that is not available at Heathrow. If he wants to ensure that British jobs are transported to the continent, his policy is the perfect vehicle for doing so. If he pretends that in doing so he will somehow save carbon, he needs to understand more about the agreement on the ETS, which his party supports. He supports the approach that we have set out and agreed on the European trading of carbon. That policy will allow continental hub airports to expand at Heathrow, so he really needs to think through what he is arguing for if he has any interest whatever in jobs, the economy and employment in this country, which I doubt he does.
	Let me deal with the two or three other points that the hon. Gentleman made. Clearly no developments will take place without safety. On green slots, I have indicated that we will set out a legal regime for determining the expansion of capacity at Heathrow, so there is no doubt that it will be governed by the law. We will bring forward legislation where necessary that will govern the extra capacity, so there can be no doubt of our absolute commitment to ensure expansion consistent with our environmental objectives, as set out in the White Paper and as brought up to date today, in the light of our determination to save carbon and put this country at the forefront of carbon saving around the world.
	As for the hon. Gentleman's point about a vote in the House, he well knows the position in the United Kingdom and in Parliament. If he is saying that every major transport decision, infrastructure decision and planning decision will henceforth be subject to a vote in the House of Commons, he had better make clear his party's policy.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I outlined the process earlier. It is clearly necessary, in light of the 2003 White Paper, that we should address the conditions set out on environmental grounds. That is what I sought to do in my statement. As for the position beyond 2020, we have made it clear that we will seek guidance from the Committee on Climate Change, which will construct the methodology by which we satisfy that 2050 obligation, and that we will ensure that any extra capacity is subject to the tests that I have outlined.
	As for high-speed rail, I made it clear that it is obvious from any assessment of our requirements that our rail network is working extremely hard and that, as of today, we need contemplate long-term decisions for the future. Therefore, not only will I invite the company to look at the clear case for a new line to the west midlands, but equally, as I made clear in my statement, it will look beyond the west midlands at the possibility of a high-speed line right to Scotland.

Theresa May: As a result of today's announcements, my constituents face the prospect of a reduction in their quality of life with more planes flying overhead, restriction in driving their cars locally and a far worse train service in Crossrail. I hope that the Secretary of State recognises that as a result of today's announcement, nobody will take this Government seriously on the environment again. On a very specific point, when terminal 5 was announced, the then Secretary of State promised us a cap on the number of flights a year of 480,000. The Government have now broken their word, and this Secretary of State is playing the same game. In today's statement he says: "I want there to be a limit on the initial use of the third runway so that the increase in aircraft movements does not exceed 125,000 a year". That is an aspiration, not a commitment. Will he now say that it is a commitment, how it will be put in place and why my constituents should believe him today any more than they believed the previous Transport Secretary who put a cap on flights?

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry that the right hon. Lady approaches significant investment in road, rail and aviation as somehow matters for criticism. The truth is that we are putting enormous sums of public money into improving our road and rail network and ensuring that this country has the appropriate international gateways to allow people, I am sure including people in her constituency, to do business, given the profile of the kinds of people who use Heathrow regularly. They are the better-off and those engaged in business. It is precisely the people who live in places such as Maidenhead who will benefit most from the investment that we are making in transport.
	I set out very clearly the position on the increase beyond 125,000. Obviously it is vital, given the importance to our economy and every economy of constraining carbon emissions, that we put in place a new regime for determining how those extra slots will be allocated over and above the 125,000. They will take into account our progress towards the 2050 target of matching our carbon emissions to 2005 levels. The process is very clear.

John McDonnell: The decision today, for my constituents, is an absolute disgrace. The commitments that have been given on the conditions to be attached are spin. They are as worthless as the commitment that there will be no third runway. The decision is a betrayal of future generations, in terms of the environment, and a betrayal of my constituents, who will lose their homes, their schools, their cemeteries, their churches and their gurdwara. It is a betrayal of this House and democracy not to have a vote in the House. We are not asking for a vote on every infrastructure project; we are asking for the most significant project in a generation to be brought to this House for a vote. Will there be a vote and why not?

Kate Hoey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify something? You say that the hon. Gentleman is suspended, and many of us support not necessarily what he has done, but why he has done it—the fact that we are not going to have a vote in this House. Can you explain how long he will be suspended for?

Geoff Hoon: I made it clear that there is a strong case for electrifying the Great Western line, along with another of our great railway lines. I believe that that should be part of a comprehensive programme, and I made it clear that we would make a further statement later once greater details have been addressed. I did not wish to mislead my hon. Friend in any way with regard to what I said about the hub. Our proposals on the hub are much closer to west London, on land already owned by Network Rail, at the junction of the existing Great Western line and the proposed Crossrail line. A Heathrow hub would not necessarily have to be placed close to Heathrow.

Ruth Kelly: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what is truly a courageous and far-sighted decision to give the go-ahead to a third runway at Heathrow, and to consider seriously the case for new high-speed rail. I welcome, too, the commitment in his statement to look at the economic regulation of airports. Is it not now the time to consider tough new service standards for passengers? For example, any new runway that is built could not ever run at 99 per cent. capacity, as the current runways do, so passengers will benefit not just from a bigger Heathrow, but from a better Heathrow?

Geoff Hoon: First, I thank my right hon. Friend for all her work as Secretary of State for Transport, which allowed this decision to take place. I must say that there have been times when I wish that she had taken the decision, but she nevertheless contributed greatly to the ability to have the decision taken. As she emphasises, the need for the decision is the existing capacity at Heathrow. When the House debated the matter before Christmas, several Conservative Members referred to the importance of improving the airport, which no one can argue against. However, one of the practical problems faced by users of the airport, and their biggest complaint, is delay. Those delays are the direct result of operating an airport at 99 per cent. capacity. The slightest difficulty in the organisation of the airport leads to long delays, not only of hours but sometimes of days. The Conservative party needs to think about that.

Ian Taylor: Heathrow is a fixture and is important for the south-east economy as well as that of the rest of the country. Therefore, it needs to be efficient, and on that basis I welcome the Secretary of State's decision. The issue is an emotional one, but my constituents will benefit, particularly if stacking—one of the consequences of over-capacity at Heathrow—is reduced. Secondly, I welcome his efforts to constrain the environmental effects, because that will pull through new technologies—modern aircraft such as the A380 have a much smaller noise footprint over a given area. But will he comment on the alternatives offered by rail? The problem is that rail transport per kilometre and per passenger gives off more CO2 than an equivalent use of aircraft. If energy is consumed on the basis of what we produce currently from gas and coal, the CO2 emitted is far greater. At least the French have nuclear energy, which reduces the impact of their rail travel.

Geoff Hoon: I had the privilege of shadowing the hon. Gentleman when he was a Minister with responsibility for technology, and saw his rigorous approach to scientific and technological matters. I am delighted that he continues to take that approach in the same independent manner. We should improve not only the operation of the airport but people's access, which is one of the conditions that we set out in 2003. I have set out a number of proposals that will undoubtedly improve access. In answer to his question, however, it is often overlooked that running diesel engines at high speed is carbon inefficient, whereas running electrified engines at high speed, particularly on the basis of the changes proposed to ensure that more renewable electricity energy is generated, will make a real difference to the carbon impact of our transport network.

Martin Salter: Although there is not nearly enough in the Transport Secretary's statement to drag me into the Lobby to vote in favour of a third Heathrow runway, it would be churlish not to acknowledge that the dropping of mixed mode lifts the immediate threat of intensifying aircraft noise across communities as far afield as Reading, Watford and High Wycombe. The longer term prospects, however, are grim. Surface access to Heathrow from the west is a joke, as his Department acknowledges. We need direct rail access into London Heathrow airport. Is he giving the go-ahead today for a third runway at Heathrow, or two and a half runways, as suggested by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change?

Robert Wilson: Few people will take comfort from either of the Secretary of State's statements today. My constituents already suffer considerable noise pollution from Heathrow. The statement contains no real commitment to Airtrack, no money to extend Crossrail, no commitment to a third Thames bridge in my constituency and nothing to reduce pollution. Has not the Secretary of State merely proved the old adage that the emptiest vessel rattles the loudest?

Kate Hoey: The country will not understand how we, in the mother of Parliaments, representing our constituents, cannot have a vote on such a crucial issue. Perhaps the Secretary of State will be honest and explain to the House—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] I am sure that he is always honest; I mean that in the widest sense. Is he worried that if we had a vote, his decision on the Heathrow runway would not command the support of the House?

Christopher Chope: The Secretary of State has said that he expects the new runway to be operational early in the period between 2015 and 2020. Can he assure us that if that does not prove feasible, he will reconsider the issue of mixed mode? Many people who use Heathrow are very worried about the possibility of the airport's becoming redundant.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations, and for the representations that he has made on these issues.
	It is clearly important that, in presenting arguments for expansion as I have done today, we recognise the significant climate change implications for not just aviation but all transport. That is why I have set out a clear path forward that will allow the Climate Change Committee to present its proposals for how the Government should meet their 2050 obligations. There will be a detailed programme of work, involving the committee, to ensure that the Government are on track to meet not just their general target, but specific aviation and transport targets.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move on now, to be fair to the other issues that have to be discussed. I apologise to the Members I have not been able to call, but I am sure they will be remembered collectively by the Chair when this matter comes up for discussion again.

Yvette Cooper: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement in response to the parliamentary ombudsman's report into the prudential regulation of the Equitable Life Assurance Society from 1988 to December 2001. This is the ombudsman's second report; it was based on a four-year inquiry, and I would like to thank the ombudsman for her thorough and extensive consideration of all the issues involved. The Government have carefully considered this substantial report over some months, as it has raised complex and important issues. We agree that there has been maladministration in particular areas, and also that Government action is merited as a result.
	As the ombudsman's report sets out, Equitable Life is a mutual life assurance company whose policyholders share in the profits or losses of the business. Equitable had established a business which involved high volumes of policies with guaranteed annuity rates, and a well-advertised policy of distributing earnings as bonuses without building reserves for the future. After market conditions changed and the level of liabilities rose significantly relative to its assets, Equitable attempted to resolve this through its differential terminal bonus policy. However, when this was found unlawful by the House of Lords in 2000 and Equitable was unable to find a buyer to cover the additional liability of £1.5 billion, the society closed to new business in December 2000. As a result of these events, many policyholders now hold policies worth significantly less than they had originally expected.
	Lord Penrose's forensic report into all the events surrounding Equitable Life concluded that the society's own actions ultimately precipitated its financial difficulties in the summer of 2000. He said:
	"Principally, the society was author of its own misfortunes. Regulatory system failures were secondary factors."
	In addition, he found significant problems with the then regulatory regime, which was reactive and unintrusive. Since then, we have introduced major regulatory reforms. It is also right to look at the role of regulators within the regime that applied at the time. The parliamentary ombudsman has looked specifically at this issue—the role of the society and others being, of course, outside her remit. Her extensive report includes 10 findings of maladministration and five findings of injustice as a result.
	The Government have considered the report in detail. We have also considered the report of the Public Administration Committee, published in December, and I pay tribute to it for its work on this issue as well. We agree with the ombudsman that there was maladministration by public bodies in several areas. In particular, the Government agree that Equitable Life's regulatory returns in the period from 1990 through to 1996 in some cases raised questions which should have been resolved by the public bodies, but were not. In some cases we recognise this may have led to injustice for policyholders, although in several we believe it did not, in the context of the different regulatory regime which applied at the time. The Government also agree that the regulator should not have been satisfied that a re-insurance treaty entered into by Equitable Life justified the credit taken for it from 1998 to 2000. Equitable Life's regulatory returns gave a materially different picture of the society's regulatory solvency position because of the credit taken for the re-insurance treaty. We agree, too, that certain statements made by the Financial Services Authority after 2001 had the potential to mislead and may have caused injustice as a result. The detailed response to each finding, and the reasons supporting these conclusions, are set out in the Command Paper.
	The ombudsman's report states:
	"I am very far from concluding that everyone who has complained to me about the prudential regulation of the Society has suffered a financial loss."
	Nevertheless, it is clear that people have been affected, and have experienced significant distress due to events at Equitable Life. I think the whole House regrets the problems caused by the mismanagement of the society, and I wish to apologise to policyholders on behalf of the public bodies and successive Governments responsible for the regulation of Equitable Life between 1990 and 2001 for the maladministration we believe has taken place.
	We also need to consider the fairest way to respond to policyholders now. We have looked in detail at the ombudsman's proposal for compensation. As the House will be aware, Parliament has recognised over many years that it is not generally appropriate for the taxpayer to pay compensation even where there is regulatory failure. The responsibility to minimise risks and to prevent problems occurring in a particular financial institution lies, first and foremost, with the people who own and run that institution. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 reaffirmed the long-standing exemption of financial regulators from liability for negligence in the courts. The ombudsman's framework covering maladministration is, of course, different from the courts' approach to negligence. Nevertheless, we believe the underlying principle remains an important one; it has informed the approach of successive Governments, and we believe it should be sustained for the future.
	It would have serious repercussions for the taxpayer, for the relationship between Governments and financial markets, and for the nature of regulation, if the taxpayer were to provide a remedy for all losses every time the regulator fails to prevent a financial institution from getting into trouble. Nevertheless, we are concerned by the representations we have received from Members and others, both directly and through debates, that some policyholders have been disproportionately affected by the events at Equitable. It is on that basis that we believe it is right in this case for Government to set up an ex gratia payment scheme to help.
	To do this in a fair way, there are a series of important issues that we need to take into account. In particular, we need to take account of the role and responsibility of Equitable Life and other parties. As the Public Administration Committee said in its December report:
	"The current board of Equitable Life and many others have acknowledged the legitimacy of Lord Penrose's conclusion; few people dispute that its former management were primarily to blame."
	Even where there was maladministration, there was also a responsibility on the part of the society. Let us take, for example, the case of the re-insurance treaty. Although the FSA failed to follow-up problems with the treaty, it was still the decision of the society to enter into the agreement in the first place, and it was the society which had primary responsibility to ensure the treaty operated in the way intended. The Select Committee has also said:
	"The fairness of requiring taxpayers to compensate Equitable Life's policyholders firmly depends upon making sure that public funds do not pay for loss that is fairly attributable to the poor performance of the stock market or to the mismanagement of Equitable Life's former directors that could not have been prevented by adequate regulation."
	Secondly, as the ombudsman herself has said, the Government also have a responsibility to taxpayers generally to balance competing demands on the public purse. Her report states:
	"I recognise that the public interest is a relevant consideration and that it is appropriate to consider the potential impact on the public purse of any payment of compensation in this case."
	It is important to note that neither the ombudsman nor the Government has been able to estimate the cost of her recommendation, as we do not have detailed information on the relative losses experienced by different groups of policyholders or on the factors affecting the losses of different groups.
	Thirdly, we also want to focus on those who have been hardest hit; the ombudsman has noted:
	"The particular circumstances of each complainant vary enormously—in terms of their age, their involvement with the Society, the amount that they claim to have lost as a result of that involvement, and the degree of reliance that they have now, or had in the past, on income derived from their investments with the Society."
	Many hon. Members have made representations to us on this issue.
	Fourthly, we need to take into account important practical considerations. Neither we nor the ombudsman currently have much of the important information or assessments that we need to implement a payments scheme. The ombudsman, commenting on her own proposals, said that
	"the creation of such a scheme would not be straightforward by any means".
	We have considered all of these points, and we intend now to set up a scheme to make ex gratia payments to those who have been disproportionately affected. In order to do so, we have today asked Equitable Life to make available its detailed policyholder information. We have also asked former Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal, the right hon. Sir John Chadwick to look at the information and advise us on the following points: first, the extent of relative losses suffered by Equitable Life policyholders; secondly, the proportion of those losses that should properly be attributed to the maladministration accepted by the Government and to the actions of Equitable Life and others; thirdly, which classes of policyholder have suffered the greatest impact as a result of the maladministration accepted by the Government; and fourthly, the factors arising from this work that the Government might take into account when reaching a final view on determining whether a disproportionate impact has been suffered. Sir John's terms of reference are being published today.
	The ombudsman recommended that a payments scheme should be completed two and a half years after the decision to pay out. The Select Committee said that it could not assess whether that was viable, and our initial assessment of the ombudsman's approach is that it might take significantly longer than that to implement fully.
	Many hon. Members have raised concerns about the length of time policyholders have had to wait for resolution of this case, and given that many have already retired, we believe it is important to set up a scheme that can pay out as swiftly as possible, taking account of the difficult practical considerations involved. We have therefore asked Sir John to advise as quickly as he is able, and that includes providing interim updates and conclusions on an ongoing basis, so that work can progress on the practical issues in parallel without waiting unnecessarily for all his work to be concluded. We do not want to be constrained by the assessment that we have made of the ombudsman's proposals in setting out the pace at which we can implement this scheme.
	The Government will therefore introduce a fair payment scheme for policyholders who have suffered a disproportionate impact. We will do so with the benefit of Sir John's advice and taking account of the position of the public finances, as well as practical considerations. For the reasons that I have explained, we do not believe it would be right to set up a compensation scheme in the way that the ombudsman proposed, but we do believe that this is the right response. I hope the House will recognise that there is no easy solution to the problems at Equitable Life and the faults that have been found. The events at Equitable Life have been very difficult and complex and have caused problems for policyholders across the country. The consideration of those events has already informed substantial regulatory reform, as well as wider reviews of corporate governance. Today's response sets out new help for policyholders that we believe is fair to both policyholders and taxpayers. It continues to support a sensible approach for the future, and I commend it to the House.

Mark Hoban: I congratulate the ombudsman on the way in which she investigated this matter—she has done her job in an exemplary fashion. I would also like to thank the policyholders and their action groups who have made sure that this issue was always on our agenda—their persistence has paid off. After years of trying to block compensation, the Government have finally admitted today that the regulators failed Equitable Life's policyholders and that they deserve justice.
	It has been a long, hard fight by campaigners, made longer and harder by the intransigence of a Government who have consistently sought to evade taking responsibility for what happened at Equitable Life. In 2004, the Treasury ignored the Penrose report's findings that the regulators had failed. The Treasury then tried to argue that the ombudsman could not investigate a decade of regulatory failure. Having lost that argument, the Treasury bombarded the ombudsman with new information and a 500-page submission on her draft report, so that a report that was due at the end of 2005 was finally published in July 2008, and for the past six months the Government have been sitting on it. Even this statement has been delayed—the Government promised it in the autumn, the Prime Minister promised it before Christmas and we have been waiting until January to get a copy of it.
	Why has the Treasury has sought to block, frustrate and delay this report, and block justice for policyholders? It has done so to hide the Prime Minister's embarrassment. The most damning findings of maladministration related to the period since 1997—a period when the Treasury and the Prime Minister had responsibility for regulation. While the Treasury dithered and delayed to spare the Prime Minister, 30,000 policyholders died—they will never see the justice that they deserved—and policyholders living on reduced pensions and annuities paid the price for the Government's failure to act sooner.
	The Chief Secretary to the Treasury quoted Lord Penrose's comment that
	"the society was author of its own misfortunes."
	However, he also concluded that
	"the practices of the Society's management could not have been sustained over a material part of the 1990s had there been in place an appropriate regulatory structure."
	The ombudsman's hard-hitting report backed that conclusion. The regulators failed to use their powers to stop the destruction of Equitable Life. Report after report shows that policyholders were let down by regulators. Why have we had to wait until now for the Government to concede that compensation should be paid?
	In 1989, the then shadow Trade and Industry Secretary—now the Prime Minister—asked
	"why it took an internal inquiry, a departmental inquiry and now the ombudsman's investigation...before justice began to be done?"—[ Official Report, 19 December 1989; Vol. 164, c. 204.]
	Twenty years later, we ask the same the question today. Why did the Government wait so long to recognise the regulatory failings that led to Equitable Life's policyholders losing money?
	We have always believed that policyholders should be compensated if maladministration was found, so we welcome the Government's announcement. Can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury answer some simple questions? She is aware that policyholders have waited some time for justice and she said that she had no timetable to indicate when they would receive it? When will Sir John give an interim report on his work? She also announced what appears to be a hardship fund. Why has she rejected the Public Administration Committee's conclusion that
	"the payment of compensation is not a matter of charity but...of justice"?
	Who does she expect will benefit from this fund? Will it depend on how much people have invested or how much they have lost, or on their broader financial position? Is this about means-testing compensation rather than about compensating people for injustice? Can the Treasury explain whether it has imposed a cap on how much compensation can be paid to policyholders, either individually or as a group?
	The Treasury could have decided to compensate Equitable's policyholders when Lord Penrose reported five years ago, but instead it has dragged this out to save the face of the Prime Minister—it is policyholders who have paid the price. Now the Government have conceded the case for compensation they can no longer drag their feet. Justice cannot be denied any longer.

Yvette Cooper: I am disappointed by the tone of the hon. Gentleman's response. The Government recognise that serious events occurred at Equitable. As the Penrose report set out, those were principally the responsibility of the society, however, we recognise that maladministration took place. Today, I have apologised to the House and to policyholders on behalf of successive Governments and the public bodies that were involved. I would hope that the hon. Gentleman's party will join in that apology on behalf of the previous Conservative Governments, who were, of course, also responsible for the regulatory bodies in a way that affected Equitable Life and policyholders over that period.
	The hon. Gentleman also quoted from the Penrose report, which said that events might not have unfolded in the way that they did had there been in place an appropriate regulatory structure. The Penrose report indeed pointed to a series of faults with the previous regulatory regime, which stretched back to the previous insurance Act and the regulatory framework that had been put in place and supported by the previous Conservative Government over very many years.
	I did not seek to make that a political point in my statement and my response to the House. However, as the hon. Gentleman raised the matter, I must point out that it was this Government who introduced substantial reform of the regulatory process, which took account of many of the failings by Equitable Life and was based on the Penrose report. Indeed, that report welcomed many of the reforms that were under way as a sensible response to the failings of the regulatory regime as it affected Equitable Life— [ Interruption. ]

Yvette Cooper: Hon. Members on the Conservative Front Bench are clearly not listening. I have just explained the Chancellor's location.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) referred to what happened with the Icelandic banks and asked whether the approach to compensation has changed. That issue was different because it involved systemic risk. It arose at a time when there was considerable movement of money from one account to another, and significant anxiety about confidence in the banking system as a whole and in retail deposits and savings. In that climate, we believed that it was right, for reasons of financial stability, to put in place additional support for the existing financial services compensation scheme. He will be aware that that scheme is funded by the industry. We recognised that additional Government support was needed, just as additional Government guarantees were needed for Northern Rock because of the wider risk to financial stability. I do not think that that sets a precedent for other individual cases and institutions.
	The hon. Gentleman asked for an early debate, and I will pass his request to business managers.

Yvette Cooper: I welcome the work that my hon. Friend's Committee has done to look into this matter. The ombudsman's recommendation was to set up an independent tribunal that would then consider individual cases. We believe that in order to set up a payment scheme, we need additional advice on the position that policyholders are in. We also need to consider the relative losses they experience, as well as at how far those losses can be fairly attributed to the regulatory failure and to mistakes made by the society and others. My hon. Friend will recognise that we need independent advice on the issue and that that is preferable to the Government's simply making a decision on how to apportion responsibility fairly. The issue is complex and that is why we felt that appointing an independent judge to provide us with that advice would be the most sensible way to proceed, as well as the swiftest, rather than setting up an independent tribunal to do the same job.
	My hon. Friend raised the matter of disproportionate impact. We have asked Sir John to give us advice on how we should interpret disproportionate impact by considering the experiences of policyholders. We would expect that interpretation to include consideration of the extent of somebody's losses and how great they were as a proportion of their income—that is, at whether they were relying on that income or had other sources of income.
	We know, for example, that there is a difference, as I hope the House would recognise, between someone who relies on their Equitable Life pension for the majority of their income and has seen significant reductions in it as a result and someone who might still be in work and has alternative ways in which they can invest. For example, in the debate that took place in Westminster Hall, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) brought up cases of his constituents who had been particularly heavily hit, while the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said that he was an Equitable policyholder. Clearly, there is a big difference between those circumstances. We believe that it is right to be able to take such circumstances into account. However, we are asking the advice of the judge in order to inform our final decisions.

Michael Fallon: Will the estates of those policyholders who have died be able to make a claim and in which quarter of which year does she now expect the first payments to be made?

Yvette Cooper: Clearly, the issue about people's estates when they have sadly died is important. We will need to take it into account as part of the consideration of disproportionate impact. We will ask the advice of Sir John Chadwick on how that issue should be addressed. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman the precise time scale or which steps that we will be able to take, but I can tell him that we are keen to do this as speedily as possible.

Anne Begg: I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted that there needs to be conversation, and the fact that they have said that the process has to be speedy, but may I express a word of caution? Of course it has to be speedy, but it also has to be fair. In other compensation schemes, such as the financial assistance scheme and the cod war trawlermen's scheme, our experience has been that the Government have had to go back and look at them again. In some cases, there has had to be another trawl of applications. My advice is to make sure that we get the scheme right from the beginning. The scheme that we are talking about will be much more complex than either of the two compensation schemes I mentioned. I also wonder whether there is anything that MPs who have large numbers of Equitable Life policyholders in their constituency can do to help the Government to find out about the different types of people who have been affected.

Brian Jenkins: I welcome the statement and, in particular, the apology at the start. It looks like we are coming to the beginning of the end of this sad, long saga. My right hon. Friend has in part answered the many requests made by Members today by saying that the scheme needs to be quick so that the money can get to those individuals living in poverty because of this saga and who might not have much longer to live. Will she tell us, today if possible, when she expects Sir John to get back to us on the first instalment? Will she then set up a pro rata payment system, or a system that pays some money to those pensioners? Who will staff it, and what process will we Members of Parliament have to use to ensure that those affected know who to write to, and what progress is being made with their claim?

Robert Smith: Earlier, the Minister mentioned that she could not take the route that the Government took with the banks, because in that case the Government were trying to restore financial stability. Surely we are trying to encourage investors once again to have confidence. Investors believe that they have been a victim of maladministration and have had an apology; surely that apology has to be followed up by a proper compensation scheme that is related to what they lost, not their circumstances.

Stephen O'Brien: After all the ducking, weaving and kicking into the long grass, the bottom line is that Equitable policyholders simply want to be restored to the position that they would have been in but for the five admitted instances of injustices and the 10 admitted instances of maladministration, not least on the reinsurance treaty, even under the current financial and prudential supervisory arrangements. Surely it must be right not to believe that a system is fair simply because the Minister says that it is fair. What can be said to any policyholder on the fairness of the system when there is uncertainty about whether they will be discriminated against in a scheme intended not to restore them to their former position, following maladministration and injustice, but to bring about social engineering?

Yvette Cooper: Again, the hon. Gentleman's party's position, as set out by the shadow Chancellor, is that
	"policyholders cannot expect to receive payments for the full losses suffered".
	I have set out in some detail why we think that it is appropriate to set out an ex gratia payment scheme that recognises that there is a wider principle, which Parliament has recognised and supported in other cases. That principle is about the regulator not becoming the guarantor of the regulated bodies, and the taxpayer not providing a guarantee for regulated bodies. We have to ensure that the way in which the financial markets operate, and the way in which the relationship between the financial markets and the Government operates, is not fundamentally distorted by our changing a long-standing approach, taken in many areas, on how compensation is dealt with when it comes to regulatory failure.
	We recognise, however, the circumstances raised by hon. Members, which is exactly why we have said that there should be ex gratia payments in cases of disproportionate impact, which will take account of the scale of people's losses and their experiences. However, it is right to do that in a way that is fair to taxpayers as well as to policyholders and that takes account of the importance of a sustainable system in future.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am sure that many thousands of our constituents will be relieved to hear the statement but, as ever, the devil is in the detail. The right hon. Lady will have thought about the staffing needed to do this quickly and properly, and about from where those staff will be drawn, even before Lord Justice Chadwick finishes his deliberations. I hope that she will correct me if I am wrong but, call me a cynical old lawyer, "ex gratia" often means selling someone short to make them go away.

Kelvin Hopkins: I must declare a personal interest that has no bearing on my comments.
	This is the result of a gross failure of regulation under successive Governments and, as such, there is a case for full compensation for all those who have lost out. I know I am not in a minority in saying so, but it is the case. In future, would it not be sensible, advisable and, indeed, necessary for the Government to declare that when something is regulated, people will be compensated, or to tell them, "You're in the market—you're on your own"? The final alternative is to set up a much larger state savings system in which people are guaranteed returns and have no fear of loss.

Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to have to return to the subject of the noise from Parliament square's amplified protests, but you will remember Mr. Speaker's statement on the matter on 28 October. He said then that he hoped to be consulted by the Government about hon. Members' concerns about access and especially about abuse from amplified noise in Parliament square.
	If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were in New Palace yard yesterday evening you could not have failed to notice that the protesters in Parliament square appear to have been given new equipment. It made the noise deafening for people well inside the parliamentary premises, so one can well imagine what it must have been like for the police and security officers near the gates who have to protect the premises.
	Westminster council has admitted that its permission to make broadcasts from the square ran out almost a year yet, in anticipation of a statement from the Government, it has done nothing about it. Ministers told me in November that such a statement would be made imminently, but do you know whether Mr. Speaker has been consulted or given any indication of when this absurd and abusive state of affairs will be brought to an end?

Gaza

Bill Rammell: I know former ambassador Jeremy Greenstock very well, as does my hon. Friend. I believe that Hamas has a consistent track record of using terror and violence. We should oppose that, but I shall try to give a more balanced picture as I develop my remarks, and to take some other interventions.
	However, it is also true that the Israeli operation has wrought a terrible toll in Gaza. With the conflict continuing and journalists barred from entering, the picture that we have is partial, but the reported death toll has risen past 1,000 dead, including over 300 children. In Gaza, 80 per cent. of the drinking water is not safe for human consumption. Gaza's already crumbling infrastructure has been degraded still further. Those trying to help must run the gauntlet of fighting or work only during the inadequate three-hour window. Too many are paying with their own lives—13 medical personnel have been killed since 27 December, and attacks on medical personnel and ambulances have hampered organisations' ability to assist the injured.

Lee Scott: Does the Minister join me in hoping that the peace negotiations currently going on in Egypt, which I am sure everyone in the House prays will bring peace to the region, must include firm commitments that Egypt will police its border to make sure that much needed humanitarian aid gets in, but that no weapons get in with it.

Bill Rammell: I shall make some progress, then take a further intervention.
	On 27 December and with our support, the UN Security Council called for an immediate halt to the fighting. Since then, the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have been working intensively with their international counterparts to deliver such a ceasefire. In a meeting with EU Ministers on 30 December and at the UN Security Council on 8 January, the Foreign Secretary secured international consensus around that call. I am proud that our Government led the way in securing last week's Security Council statement urging a ceasefire. The British-drafted Security Council resolution 1860 shows real agreement on a clear set of objectives: first, an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire; secondly, meeting the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people in Gaza; and, thirdly, meeting Israelis' security needs, which must be tackled through new measures on illegal arms trafficking.

Bill Rammell: With respect, I want to proceed with my speech, and then I will take one more intervention.
	It is now a week since the Security Council passed resolution 1860, but the violence goes on. Every day that it does, more people suffer. Egypt, which brokered the previous lull, is now leading efforts to broker a more sustainable ceasefire. The issues are complex. We all wish that these talks would move faster, and we are doing everything we can to bring that about. The European Union is ready to send its border mission back to the Rafah crossing or to expand its mandate. We are pressing hard for action and ready to assist in making a ceasefire sustainable.
	Very serious allegations have been made against both sides. We take those allegations very seriously indeed, and they have to be fully investigated. The reality is that the allegations cannot be properly investigated while the violence continues. The Israeli authorities have said that they are already investigating specific incidents raised by the aid agencies. The United Nations human rights bodies also have a mandate to report on any such violations. As soon as there is a ceasefire and proper access to Gaza, thorough investigations must—I repeat, must—begin in earnest. We will consider very carefully the results of investigations once they are available, and that stage the parties and the international community will need to decide on further action.

David Lidington: Anyone who has followed the crisis in Gaza over the past few weeks will have been confronted by a spectacle of horror and of the most appalling human suffering. Even before the outbreak of this war, the people of Gaza had to bear the impact of economic isolation over many months. Food, fuel, clean water and medical supplies were already subject to severe shortages and frequent interruptions. Now those people, including many who wish no part of violence and did not vote for Hamas, are caught in the crossfire and fear for the lives and safety of themselves and their families.
	As the Minister said, anyone crossing the border and going to Sderot, where I was some months ago, will experience the anger and terror of Israeli civilians and understand why there is overwhelming pressure on the Israeli Government, from their own citizens, in support of the current military action. Anyone wanting to bring about an immediate end to the fighting must take on board the fact that opinion surveys are showing that more than 90 per cent. of the Israeli public remain in support of the action that their Government are taking.

Paul Rowen: Will the Minister give way?

David Lidington: No, I am not going to give way.
	The Minister in his comments today and the Foreign Secretary earlier this week talked about the welcome commitment on aid that the Government are giving to the people of Gaza. I would be grateful if the Minister replying to this debate can say something about the Government's estimate of whether the attack on the UN headquarters today is likely to cause serious disruption to the distribution of essential United Nations aid. I would also be grateful if they can say what help the Government are now providing, either bilaterally or through multilateral institutions, to offer immediate relief to suffering civilians and how far the Government's plans have now advanced to contribute to the large-scale relief work and longer-term reconstruction work that will be essential if, once a ceasefire is achieved, we can start to recreate anything resembling a normal life and hopes for a better future for the people of the Gaza strip.
	But we need not just to provide practical, material relief. The history of Gaza shows us that a truce is inherently unstable. The weaknesses in the old ceasefire arrangements, which collapsed three weeks ago, were analysed well by the International Crisis Group. The ICG pointed out that the ceasefire was unwritten, that it was negotiated via a third party and that the interpretations of its terms, by Hamas on the one hand and Israel on the other, differed substantially. Hamas believed that it had achieved a six-month period providing phased access to and for Gaza, whereas Israel viewed the agreement on a ceasefire as open-ended, with a modulated opening of the crossings, depending on the degree of calm in the south and progress towards the release of Gilad Shalit. The incompatibility of those differing interpretations of a ceasefire agreement that was never written down is an important part of the explanation of why it collapsed when it did.
	It is dangerous to think that if we can get a new ceasefire in place, the international community can then sit back and take its time before making moves to rekindle the broader peace process. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and others have said, what we have seen in recent years and even decades is a failure of political energy and political will by the entire international community.
	Efforts to seek a comprehensive peace settlement should be a priority for the new United States Administration and for the European Union. I do not pretend for a moment that that will be an easy and straightforward task. I spent most of last week in Syria and Lebanon, and I saw how the Arab media are using images of death and mutilation in Gaza that are far more vivid than anything published or broadcast here. I got a sense of the rage being felt by Governments and ordinary citizens in those countries, and we have to remember that in virtually every Arab country 60 per cent. of the population is under 30. Moderate Arab leaders are fearful of the impact of Gaza on opinion in their countries, and even states such as Turkey and Malaysia have denounced Israel's action in the most strident language.
	Yet the signs are not altogether those of pessimism. The Syrian leaders to whom I spoke told me that they certainly could not talk to Israel now, but that they would be willing to return to talks about Golan in the future, after a ceasefire in Gaza had been re-established. We all know the political objective: an Israel living safely behind internationally recognised borders and alongside a Palestinian state that is sovereign, and economically and politically viable. That has to be coupled with Israel's right to live in peace and security, recognised by all of her neighbours. In essence, we need to ally the Oslo-Annapolis process to the regional settlement proposed in the Arab peace initiative, which involves tackling some difficult issues that are worthy of another day's debate in themselves. The process has to address the issue of Hamas and the rejectionist Palestinians. We have heard frequent statements from Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others calling for an end to the state of Israel, saying that there can never be any compromise and using language that, at times, moves from being anti-Israeli to being forthrightly anti-Semitic. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that those organisations enjoy a measure of genuine electoral support in the Palestinian territories. Are those organisations prepared to commit themselves genuinely to a political process whose objective would be a two-state solution and the recognition of Israel?
	The role of Iran was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood). Iran, with her population, natural resources and the entrepreneurial traditions of her people, could be a key economic and political force for good in the region, but at the moment Iranian policy far too often exercises a malign influence on the search for peace and stability. Iran has got to choose what type of influence she wishes to exert. Does she want a durable peace in the region and the recognition of her role as a significant player in regional affairs, or does she seek the path of confrontation? I have believed for a long time that the policy of seeking to isolate Iran—refusing to engage with her—was a mistake. I welcome the fact that the new US Administration are committed to a policy of engagement, and I hope that they will test to the full the readiness of the regime in Iran to work for peace, rather than for instability and confrontation.
	To conclude, the interests of the United Kingdom lie not only in a ceasefire, and not only—vital though it is—in bringing an end to the suffering of 1.5 million people, but in an enduring peace that will at last give to all the countries of the middle east the assurance of security and the chance for their people to prosper.

Edward Davey: Of course one is very concerned about many of the statements that President Ahmadinejad has made over the years, but I do not think that is relevant to this particular battle and the way in which Israeli is going about it.
	I believe that friends of Israel—people who believe in Israel's right to exist and want to support Israel—have to be very frank with her at these times, because she is making such an historic mistake. In doing that, we must put strong pressure on Israel, as well as on Hamas, to stop its actions. Israel needs to know that it is not just dealing with words; we will take actions and there are consequences to what she is doing.

Edward Davey: No, I will not give way for a while.
	Israel needs to be reassured that we are with her against the Hamas rockets, but she needs to know that we will not stand by and see her jeopardise her own long-term future. We need to put pressure on Israel for another reason: the rest of the world needs to know that we mean it. The truth is that this action is radicalising, and will radicalise, people across the world. They are being radicalised not just against Israel, but against the west. They are blaming us too, as happened with the disastrous war in Iraq. For our security and global security, we need to use foreign policy to prevent a further spurt in the growth of extremism throughout the world.
	What should that pressure be? We started with a resolution from the United Nations Security Council. We strongly welcome that, and the Government's role in securing resolution 1860. We wish that it had come sooner, and we wish that there had been no United States abstention, but it is clearly a step in the right direction. However, we need to go further, and Liberal Democrats have argued from almost the beginning of the conflict that there are two measures that the Government should take. The first is suspension of the new upgraded EU-Israel co-operation agreement, and I was pleased that the European Union agreed to that yesterday afternoon. Interestingly, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) first proposed that on 30 December, the Foreign Secretary said that he was naïve. It now seems that he was not so much naïve as right. The Government and the EU should lead public opinion, but their decision eventually to suspend that new agreement suggests that they are following public opinion, so the measure is not as powerful as it should be.
	Our second proposal for action is an arms embargo. It is inconceivable for Britain to send arms to Israel now. How can we condemn its action as disproportionate, as the Government have done, when we are willing to send arms? That is ludicrous. Even if the Government reject that embargo proposal, as it appears they will, the House needs to be assured that arms control policy on Israel is being strictly enforced.

Edward Davey: Our position on an arms embargo is not related to the use of white phosphorus, but to the need to get a ceasefire and to put pressure on Israel to move towards that ceasefire. The use of white phosphorus should be the subject of an investigation, because, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, white phosphorus can be used in a way that is against international law, particularly if it is used against civilians, and that would have to be investigated.
	We also need to be putting pressure on Hamas. We should use our contacts, particularly in Damascus, to urge Hamas to come to the negotiating table and to push for a ceasefire. Hamas needs to know that unless it makes it clear that it will end violence, it will not get the legitimacy that it seeks in the eyes of the outside world.
	If we use the tools of diplomacy to put pressure on Israel and Hamas we can bring about a ceasefire more quickly. I know that an awful lot of democratic action from our Government and others is under way and we hope that that will be successful as soon as possible. Many of us suspect that there will miraculously be a ceasefire in the run-up to next Tuesday and the inauguration of the next President of the United States. That is perhaps a happy timing, but it might also explain why Israel took this action at this time. Let us hope that we can bring about the ceasefire before next Tuesday, because with every hour and every day more people are dying, more children are dying and more people are suffering.
	After the ceasefire, we need to redouble our efforts for a permanent peace settlement. The Minister was quite right to say that this is not just about the last few weeks, but is about months, years and decades. When I was in Israel and Palestine last November, I spoke to Dr. Fayyad, the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, who is central to the peace negotiations on the Palestinian Authority's side, and to Dr. Tal Becker, the policy adviser to Tzipi Livni, who is in the room during the negotiations with the Palestinian Authority and was in the room during the Camp David negotiations. The message I got from both sides was that they were making real progress with the negotiations. Some of the substantive detail was being taken forward. They were both saying the same thing to me, even though they were not in the same room at the same time, which I took as rather a good sign.
	There are some substantive positive developments, but they are not well known, because the parameters within which the negotiations are being undertaken means that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. That means that press releases about the progress that has been made cannot be issued. I was convinced by both sides, however, that there has been progress. However, the problem is that behind the secret progress the Palestinian Authority of President Abbas have not been able to show progress on the west bank to the wider international community or the Palestinian people. The economic progress that Tony Blair has been trying to pursue as a middle east peace envoy has not really happened. The improved security that we have sought is in place in Jenin but in few other places.

Roger Godsiff: I am most grateful to have the opportunity to speak in the debate. The recent pictures that we have seen on television and the harrowing stories that we have read in the press have shocked and angered many people in this country, not least in my constituency. The pictures are so shocking that it could be easy to assume that all Israeli citizens support the actions of the Israeli Government, and it would also be easy to assume that all the people living in Gaza support the elements in Hamas that have been firing regular salvos of rockets into southern Israel. I do not believe that that is the case.
	It has been said on many occasions that the first casualty of any conflict is the truth and that would certainly appear to be the case so far as the bombardment by the Israeli army and air force is concerned. Israeli Government spokespersons make nightly appearances on television seeking to justify why, for example, a UN school which had been assigned as a temporary refuge, and whose GPS co-ordinates were given to the Israeli army, was bombed, or why Shifa hospital in Gaza city was attacked. Those justifications are not only disingenuous, but are vehemently challenged by the UN and other aid agencies on the ground. They refute the allegations that those, and similar facilities, are being used as a cover for Hamas military activities. The conclusion that many people have drawn is not only that the "justifications" of the Israelis are untrue, but that they mask the real intention of the onslaught, which is to destroy as much of the civilian infrastructure of Gaza as possible as a form of collective punishment of the people of Gaza for electing an Hamas Government.
	The first duty of all Governments is to protect the integrity of their country and to protect their people from attack. I do not mean to trawl through the history of the last 60 years, ever since the United Nations decided to partition Palestine and to approve the creation of the state of Israel, or the subsequent history of conflict and missed opportunities for a lasting settlement based on the creation of a Palestinian state and the so-called two-state solution. However, we surely need to question whether the killing of more than 1,000 Gaza civilians is a proportionate response by Israel to the provocation of missiles being fired into southern Israel.
	We also need to question whether the onslaught is not—I regret to say this—part of a parting shot from a thoroughly discredited American President and Administration who have singularly failed, throughout the past eight years, to understand the complexities of middle east politics, and who have naively believed that the promotion of democratic elections in countries with little or no history of democracy will solve everything. That is, of course, exactly what happened in Gaza. Unfortunately, the people elected a Government who were unacceptable to the discredited Bush Administration.
	A second question that has to be considered is whether the policy of isolating Gaza and imposing an economic blockade has not been a major factor in precipitating the current carnage. Of course Israel and its protector, America, would have been concerned by the rhetoric of Hamas when it was elected, and its avowed commitment to destroying the state of Israel, but many seasoned commentators on the middle east have pointed out that Hamas was elected by the people of Gaza as a reaction to the incompetence and corruption of the previous Fatah Administration, and because of the work that Hamas carried out on the ground in helping ordinary people. The IRA's political wing, Sinn Fein, won political support in Northern Ireland using the same tactics.
	Many people would argue—I have come to this view myself—that if Israel had sought to engage with the Government and people of Gaza when its troops and settlers left; if it had, as a gesture of good will, left intact the illegal settlements for the people of Gaza instead of pursuing a scorched earth policy of destruction; and if it had subsequently sought to promote trade and economic development with the people of Gaza instead of building a wall around Gaza and taking even more Palestinian land to construct that monstrosity, there would have been a better chance of persuading the people of Gaza that co-operation was better than continuing conflict.
	Prior to 1967, Israel was surrounded by four countries, three of which—Egypt, Jordan and Syria—opposed its right to exist. However, that has not stopped Israel from making lasting peace with both Egypt and Jordan, or from entering into negotiations, albeit through intermediaries, with Syria to bring about a lasting peace with that country. The idea that the people of Gaza should suffer collective punishment for electing an Hamas Government, and that they should be blockaded into submission until that Government renounce their reason for existence, was frankly disingenuous and symptomatic of the simplistic view of the world that the Bush Administration have had, particularly since the traumatic events of 9/11.
	The most pressing need is for a ceasefire, properly monitored by the United Nations. Above all, there has to be a just settlement with regard to the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, so that there can be lasting peace in the middle east.

James Clappison: The subject engages sympathies across the House and there is often a marked lack of detachment. On this occasion, however, I commend—it is not often that I commend the Government—the speeches from the Minister and from my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). We have had balanced speeches from two of the Front Benches in the debate.
	I support what I regard as the pragmatic search for a solution that will bring an end to the scenes that we have seen over the past few days and over the longer period in which the rockets have been fired. I urge the Government, through their representations, to seek a sustainable solution. The key to the durability of a solution is an end to the firing of the rockets and an end to the supply of armaments into the Gaza strip. What on earth do people want weapons coming into the Gaza strip for? What possible purpose can that serve? That should be followed in short order by the supply of humanitarian aid, which is much needed, to the population of Gaza.
	The key to the matter is how it began. It began with the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel over a long period. What on earth were the Israelis supposed to do? Were they expected to put up with that over a longer and longer period? When was action expected to be taken on it? We have to see the situation from the Israeli point of view.

James Clappison: I want to stop the current situation, and the hon. Gentleman wants to stop it. The key to that is removing the conditions in which the immediate conflict began. It began through the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel. The objective is to stop that. The Israelis are satisfied with that solution. They withdrew from Gaza, they removed their settlements, and they have no wish to expand into Gaza. The conflict is not part of an Israeli attempt to take over Gaza. They simply want to see the end of rockets being fired at their citizens. I ask hon. Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches how thrilled members of the public in their constituencies would be if they were subject to rocket attacks. Would hon. Members expect their constituents to come to them and ask would could be done about the matter?
	Let us see an end to the bombardment and a sustainable solution. That will be a first step towards a wider solution. I do not yet have a great deal of confidence in Hamas. I listened to the very interesting speech from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and I pay tribute to his expertise on the subject. Judging Hamas by its actions and its words, as we must inevitably do, we have not yet seen much open evidence of its peaceful intentions.
	I hope very much that a leader of Hamas will feel able to come forward, as my right hon. and learned Friend indicated, and say publicly that they recognise the state of Israel, that they are prepared to abide by the conditions that the international community have set them, and that they are prepared to abide by previous conditions and give up terrorism as a starting point; then, there can be talks. There is little point in Israel's having talks with Hamas before Hamas recognises it and those fundamental conditions are observed. However, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend is right and that Hamas will soon do that. It has certainly had no shortage of opportunities to do it in the past.

Richard Burden: I listened carefully to the speech of the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). May I make a suggestion to him, in a spirit of understanding? Although I recognise the pictures of Sderot that he painted, because I have also been there, he may benefit from going to Gaza and speaking to Palestinians there to ascertain whether he has a legitimate and genuine understanding of their position.
	To avoid doubt—because of time I cannot take interventions—let me preface my remarks with several matters that I want to put on the record. First, all states, including Israel, have the right to self-defence and a duty to defend their citizens from attack. Secondly, the Palestinians also have the right to defend themselves from attack and, under international law, the right to resist occupation. Thirdly, civilians should not be targeted or have their presence wilfully or recklessly disregarded in conflict. I therefore do not believe that firing Qassam rockets from Gaza at or near predominantly civilian areas in Israel falls within the definition of acceptable resistance.
	However, the fact that those rockets are fired provides no justification for the massive attacks by air, land and sea that have already killed more than 1,000 people, 322 of them children. When medical staff, aid convoys, United Nations schools and installations have been hit, even when the high-tech Israeli army has the GPS co-ordinates for those installations, it suggests that Israel is acting in contravention of the provisions of the Geneva convention on the protection of civilians in time of war, and that the term "war crime" should be used.
	I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is making major efforts to secure a ceasefire on both sides and to get the blockade lifted, so that the 1.5 million people in Gaza will not be forced in future to live in an impoverished prison 25 miles long and between three and seven miles wide. However, people in the UK and those whom I met in the middle east last week are not asking when the international community will express disapproval of what is happening in Gaza, but when we will put a stop to it. We need to do more to show that we are serious.
	I therefore welcome the EU's decision to defer upgrading its relationship with Israel, but we need to go further than putting it on hold. Under the EU-Israel association agreement, Israel has clear obligations to respect basic standards of behaviour and of human rights. If Israel is not prepared to fulfil those obligations in practice, it cannot expect to keep receiving the privileges of the agreement, and it should be suspended. If the Geneva convention and international law are being breached so blatantly, proceedings must be brought to hold people to account.
	If, as many hon. Members have suggested, there is to be an embargo on smuggling into Gaza weapons which threaten the lives of Israeli civilians, there should also be an arms embargo on the commercial or subsidised sale of arms to Israel when foreign-made F-16 fighters are attacking Palestinian civilians in Gaza.
	However distasteful Israel's actions have been in past three weeks, and, I would argue, before that; however unacceptable is its refusal to renounce violence to achieve its ends; and however much it has refused to meet its obligations under UN resolutions, the road map, the Annapolis treaty or the agreement on movement and access, the Israeli people still have rights, and we should not put pre-conditions in the way of their elected representatives being a party to the negotiations that must take place or deny them a stake in the final agreement. However, if that is the case with Israel, it must also apply to the Palestinians.
	I want Hamas to accept the Quartet's three conditions in theory and in practice, just as much as I want Israel to match its theoretical acceptance of those conditions with abiding by them in practice. Israel has not done that. That means finding ways in which to bring Hamas into the process, not excuses for keeping it out, and not as an alternative to dealing with President Abbas or Fatah. Unless there is unity among Palestinians, no deal will ever stick. We did not respond positively when Hamas moved to electoral politics or when it declared several unilateral ceasefires in the past few years. We squandered a second opportunity for progress when a national unity Government, involving Fatah, Hamas, independents and others was agreed in the summer of 2006. Let us not make that mistake again.
	I welcome the comments that the Minister for the Middle East and Africa made in the other place recently, when he said that the British Government would welcome a national unity Government and deal with their membership. When my hon. Friend the Minister makes his winding-up speech, will he assure me that we will not only welcome such a development, but do what we can to bring it about?

Malcolm Bruce: I am pleased to speak after two of my colleagues on the Select Committee on International Development, the hon. Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), both of whom made very pertinent contributions in their own way. Importantly, we on the Committee, which has produced two reports on the occupied territories, have been increasingly depressed at the deterioration of the situation over a long period, and we are obviously horrified at the current situation.
	The Department for International Development allocated $10 million for emergency relief, mostly through UNRWA, on top of £243 million that has been allocated over three years to support aid and development in the occupied territories of Palestine. However, not a penny of that money would have been needed if there had been peace. That money could have been spent in parts of the world where poor people need it just as much. It is frustrating for us that aid resources are being channelled in that way—not for development, but simply for first aid—and that conflict is costing our taxpayers.
	I pay tribute to John Ging and the UNRWA team in Gaza, who are not only supporting the Gazan people through this time, but effectively sharing their suffering. UNRWA has given us detailed day-to-day information on just how horrific the situation has been. Bad and intolerable as the situation has been over the past two years, what has happened in the past three weeks has escalated the suffering, stress and humanitarian trauma to the civilian population beyond anything that can be justified by any provocation. Indeed, I am appalled at Members of this House trying to justify that degree of disproportionate action. Those 322 children have absolutely no responsibility for anything that has happened, and they are now dead. The House should acknowledge that we cannot stand by and accept that.
	Not only that, but comments have been made about the role of Hamas. Hamas was democratically elected, and however much we might dislike it or condemn some its utterances and many of its actions, the actions of the past few weeks are likely to make Palestinians in Gaza and the west bank more likely not only to support Hamas rather than less, but even to begin to wonder how they will ever live in an independent Palestinian state alongside an Israel that behaves in the way that it has behaved in the past two or three weeks. It is important to recognise that if we do not take firm action and give a lead in delivering a proper peace process, we may well create a united Palestinian unity, albeit one under Hamas. Then the international community will have to determine how to deal with it.
	Our Committee did not agree on how we should deal with Hamas, but most of us took the view that we had to engage in some way. The irony is that the United Kingdom has a long history of doing precisely that kind of thing. We had to deal with Mau Mau, with EOKA and with the IRA. No agreement was ever achieved other than by talking to those groups before agreeing the conditions for concluding an agreement. That seems to be a lesson that we can reasonably take from history.
	In a very good statement on Monday, the Foreign Secretary said that the United Kingdom
	"supported resolution 1860—to uphold the standards on which Israel and the rest of us depend."—[ Official Report, 12 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 23.]
	However, I would suggest that that resolution goes further than that. This is the crucial point that the Foreign Secretary was making. It is not just that Israel must recognise its responsibility as a legitimate state and a member of the United Nations, with all the obligations that that entails. The point is that the international community, particularly the United Kingdom, which played such a crucial role in creating the state of Israel, would be tainted by association with breaches of international law, flagrant disregard for UN resolutions and the possible perpetration of war crimes if we failed to ensure that a member state with which we are closely associated complied with international law on terms that we subscribe to. If we fail to act, we will be tarnished with collective guilt by association.
	That is what our citizens are saying so strongly to the Government. They feel that they share responsibility for the conflict, and they want the Government to accept their responsibility to use their initiative, in concert with others, to try to ensure a resolution. Surely we have to seize an opportunity from the worst and darkest hour. All this death and conflict—and the possibility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said, that Israel has made a tactical error—can be turned around if the new Administration in the United States, with a lead from the United Kingdom and Europe, say that Hamas has to recognise the mistakes it has made, that Israel has to recognise its responsibility and, above all, that we all have to recognise that the Palestinian people should not be exposed to this degree of suffering in future. We have to ensure that the regime that operates in Israel and the Palestinian states is designed to give prosperity, peace and a functioning state to Israel and Palestine, because the alternative is the disintegration of the entire region.

Louise Ellman: There is no doubt whatsoever that the loss of civilian life, particularly that of children, as shown on our television sets every day, is truly horrifying. It is extremely important that we understand who is responsible for this deplorable situation. Responsibility in general for what is happening lies firmly with the Iranian-backed Hamas. Hamas is recognised as a terrorist organisation by the European Union, Canada and the USA, and it is an uncompromising Islamist, anti-Semitic organisation, as shown by the principles set out in its charter and shown through its actions. That includes sending out suicide bombers with the deliberate intent of murdering as many Israeli civilians as possible, calling for jihad as the only solution to what it calls the Palestinian problem, seeing martyrdom as the greatest of virtues, and stating that Jews worldwide are corrupt, control the media, run the world through the protocols of the elders of Zion and stir up revolutions throughout the world. It refuses to recognise the existence of the state of Israel on the grounds that it is a religious edict to refuse to do so and states that the day of judgment will not come until the Muslims kill the Jews.
	Hamas is not only about what is written in its charter, but its actions, and it has sent more than 5,000 rockets and missiles, targeted at Israeli citizens, since Israel—correctly—left Gaza. It used the ceasefire to extend its rocket range, importing Chinese and Iranian rockets with longer and longer ranges. Indeed, there are now 900,000 Israeli citizens in the range of rockets being fired from Gaza by Hamas, and it was Hamas that refused to extend the ceasefire. The action that Israel is now taking, difficult as it is, concerns targeting not civilians, but Hamas activists, its weapons, its infrastructure and its tunnels. The reason why so many civilians are tragically being killed is that Hamas callously places them in the line of fire.

Louise Ellman: No, I have no time.
	That is why on 14 January, Israel made a complaint to the United Nations Security Council about Hamas using children as human shields. There is a Hamas war room under the Shifa hospital—an absolute disgrace. On 9 January, the Israeli defence forces found a map of al-Atatra, a neighbourhood of Gaza, which was used by Hamas to record the location of explosive devices. That map showed that houses in that area were booby-trapped to put civilians in the line of fire, knowing that that would cause the maximum number of civilian deaths. That is callous, outrageous and deplorable. I am surprised as well as outraged that the same people who express genuine concern about the loss of civilian life—I share those concerns—do not also condemn Hamas for its callous use of civilians as a human shield. Let us remember that the organisers and leaders of Hamas not only extol the virtues of martyrdom and jihad but proclaim, "We love death. You love life." That is what Hamas is all about.
	When we rightly show our concern about the number of civilians who are injured and who die, we should remember the complaints made by Egypt, on 28 December, that Hamas has been preventing the injured from going across the border into Egypt for treatment. That is the nature of Hamas. When people jump so readily to condemn Israel for protecting its civilians, after claiming that it has a right to do so, they should not ignore the nature and deeds of Hamas, which sets out deliberately to kill as many civilians as possible.
	What is the way forward? It is through the enactment of resolution 1860 by both Hamas and Israel. That can only be done through steps being taken so that rockets stop being fired on Israeli citizens on a permanent basis. Hamas has no right to fire rockets and missiles on Israeli civilians. The Israeli settlers and soldiers have left Gaza: 8,500 settlers left, many of them removed by force, yet Hamas—

Elfyn Llwyd: The bombing of the Shij'ia family health care centre in Gaza city, run by the Near East Council of Churches, was an outrage. The Israelis rang 15 minutes before to say that an attack was imminent. Why, therefore, was a deliberate attack being made on such a centre?
	Journalists are not allowed into Gaza, as is the case in Zimbabwe, and precious little is being reported as it happens. We see things on television, but we are given only a partial view. There are many Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, including democratically elected members of Parliament. Will Israel confirm the number of Palestinian prisoners it currently holds, and when, if ever, it will release political prisoners? My party has always campaigned for a two-country solution, which is the only common-sense approach.
	The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) was saying that innocent people will be killed from time to time. However, as Gaza is only the size of Wrexham town in north Wales, with a population of 1.5 million any bombardment is bound to create collateral damage, as anyone can see. I echo the many calls for a ceasefire, but I am not optimistic that it will happen immediately. One concrete step that has been referred to is for the European Union to suspend Israel's privileged trade agreement with Europe, which requires Israel to respect human rights. That would send a clear signal of the need for an urgent ceasefire.
	There is a great deal of urgent feeling in the House about the issue, and I refer hon. Members to early-day motions 400, 408 and 423. What is the middle east envoy— the ex-Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, who has not yet set foot in Gaza—currently doing? His premises in Jerusalem occupy the entire floor of a hotel at a cost to the public purse of £700,000 per annum. I ask myself, "Is that proportionate?"

Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. If there was nothing to hide, journalists would obviously be free to go in. Indeed, it would be in Israel's interests to allow them free access, so that the whole world could see that, transparently, there was nothing going on that should not be going on.
	Several Members have pointed out that more than 1,000 people in Gaza have been killed, including many women and children. A United Nations watchdog said recently that Israel was showing a "manifest disrespect" for the protection of children in Gaza. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has said that although Israel signed a UN protocol condemning its acts in places where children were likely to be present, they are still continuing, day after day. Obviously I want a ceasefire. I believe that we need an accord between Israel and Palestine, but of course there must be a ceasefire first.
	I am disgusted by the present situation, with Israel's complete disregard of the Geneva convention in respect of protected people and with its continued illegal occupation of territories outside its pre-1967 borders. What is the United Kingdom Government's position on Israel's targeting of United Nations schools? Do they support calls from United Nations officials for a full UN-backed investigation of the bombing of Palestinian schools by Israel, with the aim of bringing those responsible to book? How do they view Israeli claims that Hamas fighters were present at al-Fakhura school in Jabaliya before it was bombed? Do they believe that the presence of fighters legitimises the bombing of a United Nations school? Those are some of the questions that urgently need answers, and no doubt they will be answered in due course.
	We now know that white phosphorous is being used. Unless it is being used for shielding purposes, that in itself constitutes a contravention of the Geneva conventions.
	I ask the Government to consider immediately an arms embargo on Israel similar to those imposed in 1982 and 1994. We all want to see a ceasefire, but previous calls for one have been totally ignored. The disproportionate—I use that word again—military intervention in Gaza is nothing short of a war crime, and it galls me that the international community's call for a ceasefire is being studiously ignored by Israel.
	A couple of years ago, we debated whether Iraq had been in breach of United Nations resolutions. Indeed, it was the alleged breach of those resolutions that led to the British Government's justification for the subsequent attacks. On 8 January, the United Nations Security Council, through resolution 1860, called for
	"an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza".
	Israel's Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, responded that Israel would continue its campaign, and the BBC reported that at least 50 air strikes had hit Gaza as the United Nations was passing the resolution.
	Israel has form, in that its current conduct clearly mirrors its conduct in Lebanon in 2006. Why do we have these double standards? Why is Israel considered to be above international law? Could that be linked to the fact that Britain exported nearly £19 million-worth of arms to Israel in the first quarter of last year? Is that the reason? I do not know what the reason is, but it is apparent to me that Israel is acting as though it were above international law, and that cannot be right. I believe that until it starts acting responsibly and comes to the table to discuss peace, it should be considered an international pariah.

Andrew Dismore: The violence that we continue to see in Gaza and Israel is a horrible tragedy. While no one can help but be moved by the tragic images of dead and injured innocent Palestinian women and children and the large loss of civilian life, it is important to understand why Israel felt forced to embark on military action.
	For the past eight years, Israel's southern communities have faced more than 8,500 rocket, missile and mortar attacks. Over 5,500 rockets have been fired since August 2005, when Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in a bid to stimulate the peace process. That means, on average, one missile being fired at Israel every three hours for each of the last three and a half years. The rockets have brought death, injury, destruction and disruption to the people of southern Israel, including both Jewish and Arab people.
	Despite the continual rocket fire, Israel agreed a ceasefire with Hamas. When that ended six months later, in December last year, imperfect though it was, Israel wanted to renew it. This was despite the fact that Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups used the ceasefire to fire more than 400 rockets at Israel, to build more illegal tunnels, to rearm with smuggled Iranian weapons and to train their fighters for future terrorist attacks against Israel. It was Hamas that rejected a renewal of the ceasefire—indeed, it fired 60 rockets at Israel while Foreign Minister Livni was going to Egypt to try to renew it. Along with other Palestinian groups, including Islamic Jihad, Hamas fired more than 170 rockets, missiles and mortars at Israel in the six days that followed. Israel submitted two protest letters to the UN Secretary-General and the president of the UN Security Council about the increase in rocket fire. In an interview on Arabic television, Israeli Prime Minister Olmert warned Hamas to stop the rocket attacks. Both Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Egyptian Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit have put the blame for the current escalation of violence squarely on Hamas. It is clear that the international community ought to have been more engaged earlier, as the confrontation in Gaza and southern Israel developed over the previous months.
	Israel's operations in Gaza have attacked Hamas command centres, weapons-smuggling tunnels, training camps, rocket-manufacturing facilities and armament storage warehouses. Israeli forces alerted Palestinian civilians ahead of planned targets, using leaflets and phone messages to urge civilians to leave the immediate area, yet a further 500 rockets have been fired from Gaza at Israel, killing four Israelis and injuring many others since 27 December. Hamas is firing Iranian Grad-Katyusha missiles, which are hitting Israeli cities almost 40 km from the Gaza strip. Almost 1 million Israelis are now in range of rocket fire. No Government can sit idly by as their citizens come under attack from rockets, missiles and mortars on a daily basis. Israel has the right to defend herself.
	Attributing blame does not end the fighting, however, and I fully support our Government's efforts in working for an immediate and permanent ceasefire. I welcome the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 1860, which called for just that. The text, which was introduced in Britain's name, should be immediately implemented by both Hamas and Israel.
	To achieve a sustainable and durable ceasefire, there must be an end to arms trafficking. This means a complete arms embargo on Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups in Gaza. No longer can rockets be permitted to be fired at Israel, and no longer can the dire economic and humanitarian situation in Gaza be tolerated. That is why we must also see a full reopening of the Gaza crossings, with safety and security for both sides. There must be increased and improved access for humanitarian and economic assistance for Gaza, which must be properly distributed. Neither side can secure peace and a solution to their problems through military action.
	Israel did not seek this war and wants to live in peace and security with her Arab neighbours. Peace agreements were reached many years ago with Jordan and Egypt. Israel has been actively pursuing talks with President Abbas since the Annapolis conference in November 2007, and also indirect talks with Syria.
	In stark contrast, Hamas, while originally democratically and fairly elected, carried out a coup in the Gaza strip in June 2007. Since then, Hamas has suppressed all forms of opposition, including killing Fatah activists. Hamas uses its own people as human shields, positioning its firing positions and arms dumps among homes, schools and hospitals, inevitably increasing civilian casualties, which it then exploits for its own propaganda aims. It is Hamas whose charter still calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. It is Hamas which persecutes its own people in Gaza who are Christian, trade unionists, Fatah members or gays.
	Hamas knows what it must do if it wants to be accepted into the international community. The Quartet principles require it to renounce violence, recognise Israel and accept previous international agreements and obligations. This asks no more than was asked of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in 1988, and which the PLO accepted.
	However, in these depressing times it is crucial not to lose sight of the fact that there is still an Israeli-Palestinian peace process. That process needs the full support of the international community and renewed and increased engagement by the incoming President Obama Administration if we are to see real progress.

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention.
	The Gaza tragedy should make the international community more determined than ever to facilitate a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel, together with the Palestinian Authority, must actively demonstrate progress in their ongoing negotiations. Only a process that demonstrates real improvements in the situation on the ground will have the support of both the Israeli and Palestinian people, with increased security and better lives for both. The ultimate goal is that elusive two-state solution: the creation of a viable Palestinian state living next to a safe and secure Israel.
	We also need more active engagement from the Arab world. In that context, I welcome the Government's actions in supporting the Arab peace initiative, which offers the full normalisation of relations in exchange for Israel's withdrawal from occupied land. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is absolutely right when he speaks of
	"a 23-state solution—22 members of the Arab League plus Israel".
	Only a peace agreement that has the support of the wider region can succeed.
	In the few moments left available to me, I simply wish to refer to some of the impacts of the conflict in the United Kingdom. Since the start of the fighting in Gaza, more than 150 anti-Semitic incidents have been reported to the Community Security Trust from around the UK; more than 130 incidents have been reported in January, making it the worst month on record. The Gaza conflict is being used as an excuse for racism; anti-Semites are using an overseas conflict to justify their actions. Although most demonstrators voice their protests in an entirely legitimate way, there have been reports of many examples of anti-Semitic chanting, and of anti-Israeli demonstrations where Jewish, rather than specifically Israeli, symbols have been used on placards. It is despicable that we hear people on demonstrations outside the Israeli embassy in Kensington calling for the closure of Jewish shops in that area, that we hear incitement to violence and that there is violence against the police as a consequence. That is not the way that people in this country should behave. We have had a passionate but measured debate in this Chamber, and that is what we should see in the outside world. People feel strongly on both sides of this argument—Jewish people and Muslim people, those who support Israel and those who support the Palestinians—but the UK is a democracy and we must debate these issues properly and fairly, without anti-Semitism and without Islamophobia interfering in the discussions, passionate though they may be.

Hugo Swire: Those of us who were rather cynical about the prospects of the Annapolis conference always thought it was not a question of if Israel went into Gaza, but when. It has been clear for some time that America has decided that the only way to deliver a two-state solution is to marginalise Hamas and promote Fatah. It is worth remembering that almost 43 per cent. of the people of Gaza voted for Hamas, largely because of the corruption and inefficiency of the Fatah-based Government in Ramallah. Unpalatable though it may be to some, although Israel is always cited as the only democratic country in the region, Gaza is being run by the representatives for whom it voted—Hamas won 74 out of 132 seats.
	In fact, if there is a democratic deficit anywhere in the region, it is, unfortunately, perhaps in Ramallah itself: the Palestinian Legislative Council has not met for more than 17 months; not a single piece of legislation has been passed in 2 years; and President Abbas has ruled by decree since 2007, when Hamas took over Gaza. The greatest irony is that it could be argued that under basic Palestinian law, President Abbas is no longer legitimately President, as his term of office ran out last week, on 9 January—I do concede that the law has been amended in order to say that presidential elections and legislative elections should take place at the same time. Violence has been meted out in equal measure by Hamas senior figures to Fatah senior figures and vice versa.
	It is also worth remembering a point that I raised with Majalli Whbee, Israel's deputy Foreign Minister, when I was last in Jerusalem: that 46 democratically elected members of the PLC are under arrest in Israel, most of whom are from Hamas, including the PLC's Speaker. The deputy Foreign Minister told me that he had no knowledge of that, which was curious, and that he would get back to me. If he is listening to this debate, I am still waiting.
	I was cynical about Annapolis because of the weakness of President Abbas and his ability to negotiate, even on behalf of the west bank. I was cynical about Annapolis because I could not understand how President Abbas could negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians when no one from Gaza was represented at the conference. I was cynical about Annapolis because it was President Bush's last desperate throw, and I was cynical because it was Prime Minister Olmert's last throw.
	Why did Israel decide to go into Gaza with such violence now? It would be interesting to know whether it had planned to do so before, during or after Annapolis, and again I ask the Minister whether he has any knowledge of that. It is a good time for Israel because Livni, Barak, Netanyahu and Mofaz can show how demonstrably strong they are in the run-up to the February elections. The Israeli defence force had to show that it could reach out and hit hard against its enemies following the failure of the last war in Lebanon. It needed to demonstrate to Iran, through Iranian-backed Hamas, that Israel retained the ability, capability and desire to hit out at its enemies. It took the opportunity to fill a vacuum in the White House, created by an inert outgoing President and an incoming President who, regrettably, has given mixed messages to date on his attitude to the middle east process.
	I have the honour and pleasure of being chairman of the Conservative middle east council. I, too, have visited Sderot, and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) that what happened there is intolerable. I have met children who are traumatised by what happened, and I have seen their parents and their teachers. No one can defend what happened. However, unlike my right hon. Friend, I heard from people there who felt let down by the Israeli Government because they were not given sufficient early warning or sufficient protection. It is no good saying that the Israelis cared for them in the way that has been suggested this afternoon.
	It is worth pointing out that, according to Israeli Government figures, the number of rockets fired from Gaza was reduced from hundreds in May and June to total of less than 20 in the subsequent four months. Twenty is still unacceptable, but can the Israelis be sure that they were launched by Hamas? Could they conceivably have been launched by another organisation, such as Islamic Jihad, over which Hamas has little or no control? As there was no international monitoring mechanism, it is difficult to say with authority who is to blame for the breakdown of the ceasefire, although it clearly broke down when the Israeli forces launched major air and ground attacks on 4 November, killing six Hamas operatives.
	It is impossible in the short time that we have been given this afternoon to discuss what is going on in the middle east. I have been to Gaza, and the problems have not arisen in the past 19 days; they have gone on for the past 19 months.

David Winnick: I am certainly not an apologist for Hamas. I do not support its general attitude towards Israel or its philosophical attitude in wanting a religious state. I certainly do not support rocket attacks on Israel. They are not right, and I doubt whether that is how the Palestinian people in general want the dispute with Israel to be pursued. In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said, there can be no justification whatever for attacks on individuals in this country, whether Jews or Muslims, because of the situation in Gaza or anywhere in the world. Such attacks must be deplored, and I am sure that we all do so.
	The way in which Israel has acted, however, since the invasion of Gaza has rightly horrified international opinion. It has certainly horrified me. Israel has demonstrated what can only be described as a totally callous indifference to civilian casualties. I do not accept the view that has been expressed by some who have put the Israeli viewpoint today that the reason for the civilian casualties is that Hamas has used schools, mosques and so on. I believe that Israel simply does not care how many casualties it has caused among civilians. It is indifferent, unfortunately, to Palestinian lives.
	Reference has been made to the 315 Palestinian children who have been killed, as well as the 95 women, quite apart from the number of those who have been seriously injured. Some have been paralysed for life. I read yesterday of a four-year-old who has been paralysed for life, since her chances of a successful operation are very remote indeed. Her two sisters, aged eight and two, were killed outright as a result of Israeli action attacking their house. Can that be described as collateral damage?
	I referred to international opinion, and if I am horrified by what has happened it is easy to understand what is felt in Arab streets. Would things be any different if what was happening had resulted in so many Jews around the world being treated in such a way? What would be the attitude of the international Jewish community if that was the case? I know what I would feel, and I am of Jewish origin. I would be protesting in the strongest possible way. If I do that, should I not protest today and at every opportunity about what is happening to Palestinians? Are the lives of Palestinians worth less than those of Israelis? I cannot accept that for one moment.
	In view of the excellent speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), let me say that it is wrong to come to the conclusion that Jews all over the world somehow unanimously support what Israel is doing. Quite a number of Jews, in Britain and elsewhere, are not only opposed but are strenuously opposed, in every possible way, to what is being done. It certainly should not be considered that it is being done in the name of Jews.
	The hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) is right. Inevitably, there is a cynical feeling that as the election in Israel approaches, rival attempts are being made to show who can be stronger and who can stand up more to Hamas. It is very difficult to come to any conclusion other than that what has occurred since 1 January has to some extent at least been determined by the coming election.
	Again, incidents have occurred and I want to mention just two, apart from what has happened today to the United Nations headquarters. Two UN schools were bombed, and 40 died. One other incident should not be overlooked. Israelis took more than 100 Palestinians to what was considered a safe house. What happened? Twenty-four hours later, the Israeli military shelled that same house, killing 30 or more. I only wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), who put the Israeli point of view—I respect her point of view, however much I disagree with it and however strongly I feel that she is wrong—had found herself in some way able to criticise what Israel has done.
	I have always advocated a political solution. There cannot be a military solution. Israel cannot be destroyed and can defend itself against any group or state, so we need a political solution. I am afraid that I am not persuaded that Israel has yet reached the point where it generally wants a Palestinian state—not some kind of statelet or satellite, but a genuine, viable and independent state. When Israel comes to that point of view, and is really willing to negotiate in an honest manner to end the injustice that the Palestinians have suffered for so many years—more than 60, now—that will be the time for a political solution that, hopefully, will end the kind of bloodshed that we have seen in the past few weeks.

Clare Short: I want to use the six minutes available to me to report on a recent visit that I made with European parliamentarians to Gaza, and to try and correct some of the propaganda and untruths that have been spread across the airwaves and that have been repeated here in the Chamber today.
	We visited in early November, and we found Gaza to be besieged, with people suffering acute shortages because Israel had closed the crossing-points. Schools lacked paper, pencils and pens, and there were shortages of food, drinking water, drugs, medical equipment and virtually everything else. As a consequence, nearly half the children and most of the women in Gaza are anaemic. The main hospital was under great strain even before the present terrible bombardment began, and the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross testified yesterday that it is now in an absolutely terrible condition.
	There is also a terrible smell of sewage along the sea front, because Israel will not allow the importation of the parts needed to build an essential sewage treatment plant. Civil engineers are available and money has been committed, but Israel blocks the project, with the result that raw sewage goes into the sea. Also, the Israeli navy fires on and attacks fishermen if they go beyond a few miles out. Hungry people therefore eat polluted fish and are constantly sick.
	As we left, Israel blocked the import of EU-supplied fuel, with the result that the power plant—which had already been partly bombed—had to stop operation and most of Gaza was cast into darkness. Thus, the people of Gaza were besieged and suffering even before the terrible bombardment began on 27 December.
	The present problems all flow from the response by Israel, the EU and the UK to the Palestinian people daring to vote for a Hamas Government in January 2006. Those elections were monitored by large numbers of international observers, all of whom said that they were free and fair. After the elections, however, the UK and EU adopted an approach that cravenly supported extreme Israeli and, of course, US policy. They refused to recognise the properly elected Hamas Government and instead set out to divide and rule the Palestinian people.
	That approach was justified by the claim that Hamas is a terrorist organisation. The claim has been repeated today, but what does it mean? As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said earlier, international law holds that people in an occupied territory are entitled to resist occupation. They are not entitled to target civilians—no power is, although Israel is never held to account for what it does. In fact, Gaza's home-made rockets cannot be targeted accurately, so they illegally injure civilians. That is wrong and has been denounced by everyone.
	However, we need to be clear about proportionality, which is one the conditions of the international rules of war. According to the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem, in the seven years between the first of those primitive rockets being launched and the start of the current massacre, the rockets killed 13 Israelis and one foreigner. That is terrible but, in the same period, Israel killed 4,781 Palestinians: nearly 3,000 of them were in Gaza, and one in seven of them was a child. How can the rockets justify the current slaughter? It is all regrettable, but the slaughter is not justified by the rockets. It is disgraceful that the claim that it does has been repeated constantly in this Chamber.
	In addition, there was a ceasefire negotiated through Egypt. Hamas held to it for five months, but Israel breached it in an amazing assault in early November and by its intensification of the blockade. The fact that Hamas agreed to the ceasefire and held to it has been written out of the picture and is never brought to public attention. So all these claims that the rockets justify the attack or that Hamas would not agree a ceasefire are untrue. Just as in the case of the Iraq war, the slaughter is justified by a constant litany of lies. That is one of the things that is enraging young Muslims in our country and across the world.
	Once we were in Gaza, we met the elected parliamentarians who were not in prison—there were pictures in the Parliament of all those who had been imprisoned by the Israelis—and we had detailed discussions with Prime Minister Haniya. He said that the west had asked three things of them before it would recognise Hamas's authority and negotiate with them: first, to recognise Israel; secondly, to halt violence; and thirdly, to accept all previous agreements negotiated with the PLO. He said that Hamas had responded by saying, first, that if a Palestinian state was established on 1967 boundaries, they would recognise the agreement and declare a long-term ceasefire. It has already been made clear that that is their position. That is another thing that is lied about.
	Secondly, Hamas had negotiated and held to a ceasefire. That, therefore, dealt with the claim about violence. Thirdly, on previous agreements, notably Oslo, which it thought a very bad agreement—and I agree; it undermined the position of the Palestinian people—it recognised that the agreement was properly reached by the PLO, which had the authority to do so at the time. So it seems to me that Hamas has met the demands of the west, yet still no negotiations and no contact occur. Instead, the present massacre is allowed to take place.
	Why will the UK and the EU not recognise Hamas? Why will the UK not hold Israel to international law? Why do we not take action under the Geneva convention? We are completely unbalanced. On the basis of international law, there could be a settlement. The UK and the EU allow Israel to break the law, so there cannot be peace and a settlement. The trouble will go on indefinitely and we will all reap the wreckage of it.

Richard Younger-Ross: There have been a number of excellent speeches this afternoon. I commend the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) for making some excellent points and I should like to bring light to what was said by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), who spoke with passion about the reality on the ground in Gaza.
	The hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) touched on the historic nature of the issue, and a number of Members have tried to clutch at some point at which all this started. There is a great temptation for some to say that it all started when Hamas, or whoever, started firing rockets into Israel. That is a very simplistic way of looking at this conflict, and it takes us nowhere.
	A couple of years ago, I visited Jerusalem and Bethlehem. In Bethlehem, I bumped into an old lady on the streets and was introduced to her as a British Member of Parliament. She said, "I'm glad you've come because you need to sort out the mess that you started." In some people's view, the history of the problem goes right back to the 1920s. To argue that a person is guilty for this or that action takes us nowhere.
	I wish briefly to discuss a small incident that affects a constituent of mine, and then touch on a general point about war crimes. On 30 December 2008 at about 05:30 hours EMT, an aid ship, the MV Dignity, was 53 miles off the coast of Israel when it was rammed by a coastguard cutter vehicle from the Israeli navy. It bore a Gibraltar flag and therefore sailed with British protection. There were 16 passengers on board, and aid to be taken to Gaza. There were three doctors—one Irish, one English, and one Palestinian. Also on board was Cynthia McKinney, an American Congresswoman, and reporters from CNN and al-Jazeera. The ship was organised by the Free Gaza Movement.
	The ship left Larnaca, Cyprus, at 7 pm on the evening of 29 December. At 4.55 am on 30 December, it was about 70 miles off the Israeli coast when those on board saw big searchlights at the stern. For about 30 minutes, the searchlights hovered around them, occasionally being taken away and brought back on. Flares were put up into the air by the Israelis. Two gun boats had been circling them for this period, with no radio contact despite calls from the master of the Dignity. The Israelis turned off the searchlights and all went quiet. Then, without warning, there was a massive crash in the bow, the Dignity began to splinter and suffered severe damage to the bow. The Dignity began to take on water but, thankfully, was not sinking. The master of the Dignity immediately put out a mayday call but got no response. The Israelis eventually spoke, stating that those on board were terrorists and threatening to shoot at the Dignity. They demanded that the Dignity return to Larnaca, but it did not have enough fuel to do so. Eventually, the Dignity received help from the Lebanese and headed for Lebanon guided by the Lebanese navy.
	That prompts serious questions about the conduct of the Israeli navy, in that it can make an unprovoked attack on a ship taking aid and supplies to the people of Gaza. If the Israelis genuinely thought that there were terrorists on board the ship, why did they not do what any British naval vessel would do—try to board it? Why did they not try to find out what was being carried on the ship? No—instead they rammed it, putting everyone's lives at risk. I know that the Foreign Secretary has promised to look into this incident, but I hope that there will be a full investigation. If these events are proved to be true, I hope that the Israeli ambassador will be called in to see the Foreign Secretary so that it can be explained to him that this is not acceptable behaviour and is against the laws of the sea.
	Let me turn briefly to the issue of war crimes. If white phosphorous has been used—it looks very likely that it has—and one looks at the overall way in which the Israelis have hemmed in and treated the Palestinians in Gaza, they have committed war crimes. People will argue that it was a one-off, that it was an accident and they did not mean to do it, or that it was justifiable in the circumstances. However, if a nation has a track record of breaking international law in such incidents, one has to question what people's motives were and whether they really knew what they were doing. In Lebanon, 1 million unexploded cluster bombs were left lying on the ground, 90 per cent. of which were fired in the last 72 hours before the deal was done in New York and the start of the ceasefire. If that is not using cluster bombs as mines, I do not know what is, and that is a war crime.

Phyllis Starkey: We have heard some excellent speeches, and I associate myself with the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I add my voice to his in saying that the moderate elements of Hamas must be engaged in the discussions on the way forward.
	I wish to make three points to which I hope the Minister will respond. First, after the ceasefire—we all hope that it will be immediate, although we have been saying that for rather longer than we ought to have to—it is absolutely imperative that measures are put in place to stop the previous cycle. In that cycle there has been a ceasefire, then measures put in place that create a period of quiet, during which the underlying cause of all the problems, which is the Israeli occupation, is deepened, not lightened. The violence then breaks out again and we go through the cycle for the nth time.
	The conditions that are put in place after the ceasefire, with international observers, must protect not just the rights and security of the Israelis by preventing armaments from being smuggled for use against civilians, but the rights and security of Palestinians. Thus far, all agreements have failed to respect and protect their rights and security, and the Israelis have no interest in doing so—quite the reverse. The international monitors, observers, forces or whatever they are must protect the rights and security of the Palestinians not just in Gaza but in the west bank and East Jerusalem: only then will we stop the continuous expansion of settlements, the roadblocks and the Israelis' ability to nip in any time they fancy and assassinate somebody whom they think might be about to threaten them.
	My second point is about the serious allegations of human rights abuses, which have been detailed by a number of hon. Members. They have been made by the UN, which we have a duty to support, not by some tin-pot reporter from  The New York Times. They have been made also by the International Committee of the Red Cross and a variety of human rights organisations, including Israeli ones. There have been attacks on a United Nations Relief and Works Agency convoy and on UNRWA schools. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) is no longer in his place, because UNRWA was there at the time and states categorically that there were no militants in that school or anywhere near it. I really do not know how some reporter from  The New York Times coming in afterwards, presumably embedded with the Israeli troops, has anything to offer.
	There have also been attacks on ICRC and UN personnel and ambulances. Children and other civilians have been shot in the chest and head. There was the white phosphorus attack on the UNRWA headquarters, which halted all aid, as well as attacks on a media building and a wing of the Shifa hospital. The most sickening thing was that at the very moment today when the Israeli Defence Minister was at last admitting that Israel did hit the UNRWA site and that it was a "grave error", the Israeli spokesperson Mr. Regev was still on television saying, "Oh, well, it wasn't us. It was probably Hamas. How do you know it wasn't them who were dropping phosphorus?" I hope that that destroys his credibility, if he had any, once and for all.
	The Israelis have a stated policy of what they regard as acceptable civilian deaths. It was printed in the  Washington Post in 2006. At that time, the agreed Israeli policy was that it was okay to attack militants, as long as only up to 3.14 innocent civilians—a precise little figure—were killed for every terrorist killed. If children were killed, the number was a bit more stringent. The exact figure was not given, but it was fewer than three civilian deaths allowed. That was the Israelis' policy, in writing, in 2006. I have no idea what it is now, but it seems to have been multiplied by about 100. The UK Government must support independent investigations into the abuses and make sure that Israel is held accountable.
	My final point is about the EU trade agreement. I am glad that the European Parliament has held back from ratifying it and that the European Commission has stopped all discussion. The trade agreement is a privilege, not a right. It for us in the European Union to give, not for Israel to demand. It has human rights clauses, and when it was introduced in Parliament, the then Conservative Minister William Waldegrave gave Members clear assurances that if those clauses were breached, the agreement could be suspended. That is what we should do now, as they have clearly been breached. Israel has breached and effectively suspended the agreement by breaking its part of the bargain.
	I want our Government to insist that the EU convokes the responsible human rights sub-committee to examine the evidence of human rights abuses. It should examine not just those in Gaza but, for example, the fact that Israel has just banned the two Arab parties in Israel from participating in the elections, thus effectively disfranchising the one fifth of the Israeli population who are Arab-Israelis. That is not in line with EU principles of human rights and democracy. Such actions have disqualified seven elected Members of the Knesset from standing again. All the examples that I have outlined are unacceptable and contrary to Israel's claims to be a beacon of democracy. The human rights abuses have breached the agreement, and we must work in the EU to suspend it; otherwise, all our human rights clauses become dead letters and the EU will be unable to uphold its intrinsic values of human rights and democracy.

George Galloway: I say to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who is not in his place, that the international community is not impotent, but merely feigns impotence as an excuse for its failure to carry out its duties. Although the Minister's words were more robust, he essentially masked the same inaction as the languid and complacent Foreign Secretary, who performed in front of us on Monday.
	Compare and contrast British diplomacy on the subject that we are discussing with our response to Zimbabwe or, more particularly, the Russian conflict with Georgia. The Foreign Secretary was everywhere then, lecturing the Russians on what they must do. He even flew to Kiev, stood on the dividing line, and told Russia what the international community required of it.
	On Gaza, our Ministers boast of writing a UN resolution, which has been completely ignored. I would be embarrassed to say that I was the author of a resolution—which passed, not with international consensus, as the Minister claimed, but with the abstention of the United States, the only vote that mattered—if it were then ignored and the Government had no intention of doing anything to make its terms effective. That is what we have.
	The Foreign Secretary says that he does not want what he calls gesture politics, which were supported widely in the House today, such as an arms embargo, recalling ambassadors and requiring the withdrawal of Israeli ambassadors, because he does not want to isolate Israel. However, he and the Government were at the forefront of those who isolated the elected Government of Palestine, which was Hamas. They do not like to talk about it now. They prefer to talk about President Abbas, who illegally occupies the presidential seat in Ramallah. They refuse to acknowledge that the Palestinian people voted for Hamas.
	I have never been a supporter of Hamas. Like the noble and right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), I was, all my life, a supporter and friend of the late President Arafat. The Israeli attitude to President Arafat and Fatah when they were in power was exactly the same as their attitude to the Palestinian Administration of Hamas. Israel drowned Arafat's Administration in blood through a policy of assassination, settlement, wall-building and economic embargo. The British Government wholeheartedly supported the embargo on Gaza to punish the Palestinian people for voting for a Hamas Administration.
	The Government's double standards in this affair are so brazen that people outside are boiling with rage. If that is not so clear in this building, people outside are furious. The danger of radicalisation, especially of the Muslim youth in this country, is clear and present. The Government are always looking for some cleric to whom to refuse a visa, or some Islamic organisation to proscribe to try to curb radicalisation. How radical does the Minister believe that British Muslims feel now, as they watch on the news the bombing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and the slaughter of children that has been adumbrated here today? The Government's policy of tackling extremism and radicalisation has been set back by their complacency and ineffectual policy on Gaza, especially when compared with their militancy on subjects such as Russia and Georgia.
	I do not have time to say all that I have to say, but I want to say something to those who have been boasting about going to Sderot. I am amazed at how many Members of Parliament have been to Sderot. Did any of them see the ruins of the Palestinian villages on which Sderot is built or the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people from Sderot and the south of Israel? Did any of them know that the refugee camps of Gaza are filled with the people who used to live in the villages on which Sderot is built?
	This did not start on 27 December. With respect to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), who made a great speech, it did not even start in 1967, when Sderot and other places were cleared. It started in this building, when Arthur Balfour, on behalf of one people, promised a second people the land that belonged to a third people. We are the authors of this tragedy.
	Everything that has flowed has flowed as a result of that declaration. For that reason, if for no other, the British Foreign Office needs to pull its finger out and stand up and be counted, alongside the British people demonstrating on the streets of London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Edinburgh, Glasgow and elsewhere. Let us see some urgency from the Minister. Action speaks louder than words. So far, we have had no action from this Government at all.

Keith Simpson: As a number of hon. Members have said, this has been an excellent debate. There have been somewhere in the region of 20 speeches, many of which were made with great passion. In the two years in which I have been a member of the shadow foreign affairs team, I have attended many debates on the middle east, and I recognise that many hon. Members who speak in these debates often take one side or another, but they usually speak with a great deal of generosity. This week we have debated the tragic subject of Gaza three times: after the statement on Monday, during Foreign Office questions on Tuesday and in this debate.
	I shall touch briefly on the contributions of five of my right hon. and hon. Friends. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) spoke with a great deal of knowledge not only of the middle east, but of the difficult task of trying to negotiate between two groups of people whose policies and views it is almost impossible to reconcile. He has done that in Northern Ireland, and he is doing it now in the middle east. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) has always been a staunch supporter of the state of Israel, and is a pragmatist in many respects. He argued strongly that whatever immediate solution came about, we needed to move beyond a ceasefire.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, is a firm supporter of the state of Israel, and he spoke in a considered, sympathetic and balanced way. My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) spoke with great conviction and knowledge about the situation in Palestine, and emphasised the point that, in many respects, the situation among the Palestinians in Gaza was more representative and democratic than that in the west bank. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who is also proudly a keen supporter of the state of Israel and—I say this in the best possible way—a true Christian gentleman, argued about the almost conflicting situation of bringing together an independent state of Israel and a truly independent state of Palestine.
	I want to touch on three or four themes. Hon. Members quite rightly emphasised the impact of the killing of hundreds of Palestinian civilians under the assault of the Israeli defence forces. I recognise that most hon. Members have accepted that that is perhaps down to the law of unintended consequences, and that those civilians were not directly targeted. Hon. Members on both sides know, however, that fighting in built-up areas with a civilian population will lead to civilian casualties. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and the Minister said, if accusations are made about war crimes or the breaking of the rule of the law of war, they should be fully investigated and, if necessary, charges should be brought.
	One of the problems in this debate is how, if we are to hold Israel to account, we are to hold to account a political party such as Hamas, which might also break the laws and rules of war. How are we to bring to account people who use civilian sites and use weapons against civilians? That is much more difficult to achieve, and we should not resile from that point of view.
	The Minister and others argued about how to establish a ceasefire. I am with the majority of colleagues who spoke in today's debate in saying that a ceasefire or truce will once again be only a temporary band aid to the problem. In the case of other ceasefires, not only in Gaza but on the border with Lebanon, the problem has merely been freeze-framed for a certain period. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes and others have said, we will only succeed if we involve the international community directly, and it will take many months, if not years, of great commitment.
	As several Members have said, without such commitment by a United States Government over a long period, I suspect that we will not get the movement that we want, on both the Israeli and the Palestinian side. It is not just a question of the United States of America bringing pressure to bear on Israel, but of the United States having the political, diplomatic, military and economic clout to bring pressure to bear on other regional powers. Several Members referred to the importance of the role of Egypt and Syria, but countries such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states must also be directly involved. If we do not do that, we will be back here in a few months' time, having had a ceasefire or a truce. Another international problem will have emerged, while this one will have gone back down the agenda, and we will face another crisis.
	I am particularly concerned about the state of public opinion in Israel. As a consequence of any immediate ceasefire, it seems to me that the Israelis will think that they have only bought themselves a temporary truce. They will not have beaten Hamas militarily—they will perhaps have pushed Hamas back through a limited military action. However, as many Members have said, they will have been damaged in world opinion as a result of the images that have been projected of the suffering of the Palestinian people. That will be a political defeat.
	What is the role of the United Kingdom? We have diplomatic influence. We have a great commitment to humanitarian aid, which is of fundamental importance and is supported overwhelmingly by the British people, who want to see more of it. We also perhaps have some influence over an Israeli Government, who, I fear, will get into a siege mentality. As several Members have emphasised, our own Jewish and Muslim communities will be continually radicalised by the escalation of the conflict. The blowback from that will affect all of us. Any young Muslim or Jewish person watching the conflict is in danger of bringing it back here on to our streets and into our schools. It is therefore in our most narrow, pragmatic interests to be seen to be doing all that we can to resolve the problem.
	My final point is that we have so far been fortunate that the conflict in Gaza has not spread to the west bank, or, apart from a few rockets, to the border with Lebanon. We are always in danger of an outbreak of conflict, as we have seen, developing into a regional war. A regional war with missiles, and with at least one country possessing nuclear weapons, and another that might be about to have nuclear weapons, is a frightening prospect.

Bill Rammell: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had a good debate, but the division of opinion that it has revealed across all parties underlines the difficulty of securing a resolution of the problems in the middle east. Powerful contributions, demonstrating real concerns, were made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff), the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross), the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar). I shall try to respond to all the specific questions that I was asked; I hope that I shall have enough time in which to do so.
	The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) began by asking me about the attack made on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency today, and the effect that it would have on the distribution of aid. The honest answer is that it is too early to make an assessment of the impact of the bombing. Nevertheless, it will undoubtedly have some impact, and it reinforces the calls that we have made urging all parties to respect their obligations and ensure the safe and unimpeded passage of humanitarian aid.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) made a very powerful contribution. He rightly referred to the equal importance of Jewish and Palestinian lives. He also referred to the Hamas boycott. We need to be clear about the fact that the Arab League has mandated Egypt to talk directly to Hamas. We are in regular contact with both parties, and I think that that is the right thing to do.
	The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) made a balanced contribution. I think that when he said that the Israeli action was a disaster for Israel, he was at the very least advancing a powerful argument that needs to be listened to. There is, I think, a real risk that as a result of actions that are being taken, extremists will be strengthened and the moderates will be undermined. The hon. Gentleman referred to the European Union upgrade suspension. Let me make the position clear. Neither the European Commission nor the European Union more widely has made any decision on the future of the EU-Israel relationship. The context of the EU-Israel upgrade, as set out in the conclusions of the General Affairs and External Relations Council in December, was that a backdrop of continued progress on the middle east peace process was important in parallel. The European Union will in due course rightly revisit the question of the upgrade, given that the context has clearly changed, but I strongly believe that for the present we should focus all our energies on securing and sustaining the ceasefire.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked for reassurance on arms sales. Let me repeat what the Foreign Secretary said in the Chamber on Monday. Several Members referred to the arms embargos of 1982 and 1994, but they were established before the consolidated criteria introduced by the Government post-1997. We have some of the toughest arms export controls in the world. We do refuse export licences when we believe that they would be used for the purpose of internal repression or external aggression. I know that to be the case: as a Minister, I have refused such applications. We assess applications against the risk of licences being used in operations such as Operation Cast Lead. I think that that provides the reassurance that Members have sought.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) presented some powerful arguments in support of Israeli citizens who have been and are under constant rocket onslaught. I say to her, as a friend, that I do not think she helps the legitimate cause that she advocates by sidestepping the genuine horror that members of all parties feel about the loss of 300 innocent children, and the absolute necessity for Israel to do everything possible to avoid such deaths.
	I recognise the passionate commitment of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) on these issues. I am not arguing on the basis of equivalence in terms of loss of life—we have made clear our view that the Israeli response has been disproportionate—but I think that the right hon. Lady does her argument a major disservice if she downplays and under-represents the impact of the rocket attacks on the state of Israel, involving 6,000 rockets affecting 10 per cent. of the Israeli population. A number of Members have been there and have experienced that. Anyone who sees it on a daily basis will know that it undoubtedly has an impact. We must address that problem as part of the solution that we seek.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) spoke of the importance of community cohesion. I pay tribute to the work that he did on this issue when he was a Minister. He highlighted his concern that what is happening will lead to greater levels of anti-Semitism and radicalisation. I acknowledge that that is a real concern. The Foreign Secretary and I, and Ministers at the Department for Communities and Local Government, have been talking to community groups in the last two weeks. I urge all Members to help us make clear what we are doing to try to assist in this situation; we are making the strongest possible calls for a ceasefire—we are leading the way at the UN and using every ounce of political and diplomatic capital at our disposal to try to achieve that ceasefire. I wholly agree with my hon. Friend that there is no durable military solution to the situation in Gaza.
	I welcomed the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). He demonstrated his enormous concern for the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza, but he also recognised that the launch of rockets into southern Israel is unacceptable—and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) that the word "unacceptable" does not do justice to the genuine concerns that people have.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield also asked about the national unity Government. The British Government will do everything we can to bring that about, and we welcome the prospect of Hamas—signed up to a non-violent path, and recognising the state of Israel—being part of that national unity Government. Palestinian reconciliation was at the forefront of resolution 1860.
	The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Galloway) raised the issue of the United States abstention. Let me be clear—the Foreign Secretary said this in the Chamber on Monday—that we put forward that resolution and we would have preferred the United States to have voted for it. Nevertheless, a reading of the explanation of the vote from Condoleezza Rice makes it clear that the United States did support the intentions of that resolution. To be blunt, in similar situations in previous circumstances, we may well have been facing a veto, and the fact that we did not is, I think, in part due to our efforts and the leadership we gave on this issue.
	I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) is a strong supporter of Israel, and in that respect I very much welcome his call for the implementation of resolution 1860 by both Hamas and Israel. One of the things that need to happen in the current situation is that the Government of Israel must listen to their friends throughout the international community.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) made a powerful address in which she asked me questions about the ceasefire, and stated the need for it to be sustainable and to address all the key issues. I can certainly give her the confirmation that that is what we are looking for. She also asked about allegations of human rights abuses, and I repeat what I have said earlier: serious allegations have been addressed to both sides, and it is vital that they are properly examined and that we get to the bottom of them.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) rightly underlined the fact that what is happening in Gaza is a tragedy for all concerned—Gazans, the Israelis, President Abbas, and all of us in the international community. I also wholly agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the confidence that is a necessary precondition for a peace process has potentially been shattered by what is happening at present, and that is why the situation is so serious.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) demonstrated his understanding of these issues, referring to the tunnels going from one family home to another. That is why the smuggling issue is so serious and so difficult for us to resolve. He also made the comment, which is worth repeating, that President-elect Barack Obama is not a miracle worker. My spirits were lifted beyond the roof when he was elected—I will remember that night for the rest of my life—but I say in all sincerity that no democratically elected politician could fulfil the aspirations that exist both in the United States of America and in the whole of the international community, and we need to ensure that we are not, of our own volition, sadly disillusioned, because the problems we are dealing with are incredibly difficult.
	We have had a good debate, which has demonstrated that there is concern in all parts of the House. The Government will continue to do everything in their power through advocacy and diplomacy and at the UN to try to get us to that ceasefire that is so desperately needed.
	 Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)) .

Andrew Dismore: We move from one long-standing international problem to another: Cyprus. First, I should declare my interest: I visited Cyprus at the end of November and in early December, when some of my expenses were met by the Cyprus House of Representatives. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe is about to visit Cyprus next month, so I hope that today's discussion will help to inform her visit.
	Almost a year ago, the Republic of Cyprus elected a new President, President Christofias of AKEL. That was probably a surprise to many, but it was also a pleasant one to many. Two thirds of Greek Cypriots voted for one of the two pro-solution candidates in those elections, and that sends a powerful message that Greek Cypriots, as well as Turkish Cypriots, want a solution. Before I go into the detail of my remarks, I should pay tribute to the late President, Tassos Papadopoulos, who died on 15 December. Although we in the UK may have had fundamental disagreements with him, I think we would all recognise that he always had the best interests of his country at heart. He was a key figure in Cyprus's struggle against colonialism in the 1950s, the youngest Minister in the Makarios Government in the 1960s and a President who was elected for one term, but who achieved a great deal in bringing Cyprus's membership of the European Union forward and, indeed, its membership of the euro.
	President Christofias's election means that for the first time the leaderships on both sides of the green line are committed to finding a solution—Mr. Talat is the Turkish Cypriot leader. Both they and their respective parties—AKEL and the CTP—have a long association. On 21 March 2008, Mr. Christofias mounted a new initiative, launching a preparatory phase of a new dialogue with the Turkish Cypriots. On 25 July, the decision was made to translate that into fully-fledged negotiations, and on 3 September the two leaders began face-to-face talks, meeting on an almost weekly basis. This year, they have met on 5 and 12 January, and are due to meet again tomorrow. Despite ups and downs, the atmosphere is a constructive one. The issues have been divided into six chapters: governance and power sharing; property; the EU; the economy; territory; and security. Each of those is then subdivided, with United Nations assistance, into one of three categories: agreed issues; those close to agreement to be decided by the negotiators—Ozdil Nami for the Turkish Cypriots and George Iacovou for the Greek Cypriots; and those that cannot be agreed as yet. I regret to say that far too many are in the latter two baskets, rather than in the first.
	On 5 January, agreement was reached on harmonisation and co-operation between the proposed federal Government of constituent states, and Friday's will be the last discussions on that first chapter. The next discussions will address property issues—one the most difficult and intractable questions on the island. Progress remains slow overall. On 14 January, Mr. Christofias said that
	"despite our intensive efforts, after four months' work...I do not have real progress to report...A number of secondary issues have been agreed but"—
	there—
	"remain, however, significant differences of approach."
	Nevertheless, he has expressed confidence that a result can be achieved, there are no artificial deadlines to the process and neither side wishes to walk out of the negotiations. However, there still seems to be no real meeting of minds on the end game.
	The process is much more political than before and less legalistic, and that has to be welcomed, but people do get hung up on words such as "federation" and "confederation", without analysing what they mean in terms of where on the scale of the division of powers between the central state and the constituent parties the balance should be placed.
	The UN is playing a constructive role, with a special representative, Taye-Brook Zerihoun, who tells me that he is "paid to be optimistic". The UN Secretary-General's special adviser, the former Australian Foreign Secretary, Alexander Downer, has also played a constructive role. The UN approach is to work towards a framework agreement—not a detailed one, such as Annan 5, which failed—to try to build trust and confidence as the process continues. On 10 January, Mr. Downer said that there is momentum and that he was cautiously optimistic. He said that the process needed to be owned not by the UN or the international community, but by the people of Cyprus, and that the solution would have to be put to the people, and it should not be one that is drawn up by foreigners. He is a politician who understands the need to have an outcome that is acceptable to both communities in a referendum.
	As always, the key to progress in Cyprus is to be found in Ankara. Turkey is now a member of the United Nations Security Council and in June it takes over its presidency. It will be scrutinised more closely as a Security Council member and soon- to-be-president, and it will need to be part of the Security Council's consensus. Bearing in mind also that Cyprus is a recognised member of the UN, Turkey will have to discuss these issues with Cyprus's permanent representative to the UN.
	Turkey and the EU will seek to review the accession process this year. Turkey has failed completely to implement the Ankara protocol dealing with relations with Cyprus. Ali Erel, the chairman of the Cyprus-EU Association and a respected Turkish Cypriot says that Turkey is spoilt by the EU. At the end of last year, the Turkish navy harassed the Republic of Cyprus's survey ships which were operating in accordance with the international law of the sea in the exclusive economic zone, looking for oil and other resources that would ultimately be for the benefit of all Cypriots. That cannot be allowed and we have to condemn it. It will inevitably lead to reciprocal action by Cyprus, disrupting the energy chapter in Turkey's accession process, if that is to proceed.
	Turkey remains in military occupation of northern Cyprus, with an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 troops. UNFICYP puts the figure towards the bottom end of that bracket, but Turkey could reduce troop numbers with no risk to security in the north, and should do so as a confidence-building measure. We understand that there is a new general in charge of the north, General Zorlu, who has a long history of participating in peacekeeping operations, and that has to be a positive sign for Cyprus.
	The Turkish Cypriot economy is very weak. It is founded on casinos and nightclubs, with a property boom based on Greek Cypriot land that has now come to a juddering halt. The Turkish Cypriot economy has seen minus 5 per cent. growth and it would be bankrupt without the subsidy from Turkey of 14 per cent. of its budget. Some 39 per cent. of that budget is spent on public sector pay. Turkey is now getting tough with a wage freeze, but this position cannot be sustained. We need real progress for the benefit of Turkish Cypriots.
	The EU has given €259 million in aid to northern Cyprus to bring it closer to Europe and to facilitate settlement, but that money has been disbursed extremely slowly. By October last year, less than half—€119 million—had been tendered, and only €60 million, or half of that, had been contracted. Less than half of that— €25.5 million or only 10 per cent. of the total—had actually been spent. That is not TRNC money: it is EU money that should be spent for the benefit of Turkish Cypriots.
	I was pleased to meet the new EU Head of Representation, Androulla Kaminara, when I was in Cyprus. She was very impressive. Unlike her predecessor, she is prepared to travel to the north, and she is working hard to involve Turkish Cypriots in a greater understanding of the EU and what it can achieve for northern Cyprus. However, the area needs much greater understanding of how the EU operates. For example, one of the logjams in the negotiations was the issue of the central bank. The northern Cypriots wanted to have their own central bank, which would not be possible through EU membership—showing a lack of understanding of how the EU operates.
	We need more confidence-building measures, which maintain confidence when slow progress is made in the talks and little information is coming out. A good example of that was the opening of the Ledra street crossing on 3 April. That created a groundswell of good feeling towards the process. On behalf of the Turkish Cypriots, Mr. Talat says that the concentration should be on a comprehensive solution and he is not too impressed by confidence-building measures. Of course, there will be difficulties in implementing some of them unilaterally because of the thorny issue of possible recognition of the north. One possibility would be to work through NGOs. For example, the trade issue was solved through the intervention of the Turkish Cypriot chamber of commerce as facilitator.
	"We need to create and promote a culture of friendship and mutual trust, and admit the mistakes and crimes both communities committed in the past."
	That is a quotation from only a few weeks ago from Stephanos Stephanou, the presidential spokesman for the Republic.
	Confidence-building measures could include some of the 16 recommendations agreed by the technical committee. They include measures on crime-fighting, the economy, cultural heritage, crisis management, humanitarian health issues and the environment, which could form the basis of confidence-building measures that would improve the daily lives of all Cypriots. I would like my hon. Friend to describe what we are doing to promote those ideas.
	Crossing points are vital. The Ledra street crossing is open, and I have visited it. It was interesting to see what has been achieved, but the buildings need restoration and disengagement is also necessary. The Turkish military are not playing a constructive role in that respect. We need to see the crossing at Limnitis opened, but that has become bogged down in a bogus argument about the enclave at Kokkina, which is now solely occupied by Turkish troops and has no Turkish Cypriot civilians. President Christofias has said that there is a possibility for Turkish Cypriot civilians to cross into Kokkina, but not military supplies or traffic. The crossing is vital because hours are added to the journeys of Greek Cypriots travelling to that region.
	The Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus is working well and is not politicised by either side. I visited the laboratory for the second time and was very impressed by the progress that is being made. There have been 466 exhumations so far and 110 sets of remains have been returned—78 to Greek Cypriots and 32 to Turkish Cypriots. The annual budget for the committee and its work is $3 million a year. In the three years from 2004 to 2007, we donated £160,000. We ought to consider further payments because the committee needs those extra bilateral donations. Altogether, some 2,000 Cypriots are missing from each side—1,493 from 1974 and 503 from 1963-64. There is still a lot of work to be done and at least two years of exhumations to go. It is one of the very good bi-communal projects on the island, with Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots working side by side in the laboratory and on the sites that are being excavated.
	De-mining is also important for confidence building. The United Nations Development Programme has cleared 51 minefields. That has largely been funded by the EU but there is a €5 million shortfall. That money will be needed to clear the rest of the zone, and the UN says that it could do it if it had the money. We could help by making a donation towards that. The buffer zone occupies 3 per cent. of the land. If that land could be liberated from the mines and from that part of the process, it could be used for civilian use, which could help towards a settlement.
	Education on the island is also important. I was pleased to have the opportunity to meet Mrs. Olympia Stylianou, the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Education and Culture in the Republic. The emphasis now is on the creation of a culture of peaceful cohabitation and trying to create an inclusive Cypriot national identity. The history books in the north have been revised and the Greek Cypriots are revising theirs, too, with a committee of experts due to put forward a first draft of the new curriculum in the summer. There is progress on learning Turkish in the south, although there needs to be more similar work done in the north.
	The Agios Antonios bi-communal school in the south, which I visited last year, is working very well and we need to see secondary provision, too. At Rizokarpasso school, I am pleased to see, we are no longer seeing censorship of school books and it follows the Greek Cypriot curriculum. Again, progress has been made.
	Civil society is improving, but there is still a lot to do. AKEL and the CTP have significantly improved their contacts, which is important progress.
	On trade, the Turkish Cypriot economy is controlled by Turkish business. Green line trade is starting to work, but still amounts to less than 5 per cent. of the exports from north to south. There is still pressure on those from the north not to use ports in the republic.
	The benefits of a settlement are clear: €5,500 per household for each of the first seven years after the solution. That would make a big difference to the living standards of all Cypriots. The process is open-ended, but will it make progress? Turkish Cypriot elections are due on 19 April, and Turkish Cypriot presidential elections the following year. We have the review of the Turkish accession this year. The facts on the ground are vital in that context.
	Increasing numbers of settlers in the north are a problem. We still do not know how many there are, although there have been various estimates. Some have suggested to me that only 100,000 Turkish Cypriots are left in the total population of the north. The teachers union in the north has estimated that only 3 per cent. of the children attending schools in the north are of Turkish Cypriot origin. That shows a significant increase in the number of settlers. Some 93 per cent. of hospital patients in the north are settlers, although that could be because Turkish Cypriots are making use of the hospitals in the south, as they are entitled to.
	Mosque building in the north is also significantly on the increase. I saw that with my own eyes when I visited and it is a matter of great seriousness.
	The property issue remains. Building on Greek Cypriot land has slowed down due to the recession, but its extent has been serious, particularly since the Annan failure, and the territorial implications for a settlement in Morphou, for example, are serious. The Turkish Cypriot property commission has now received 729 applications from Greek Cypriots, but the question of the adequacy of that process as a remedy for cases brought before the European Court of Human Rights has yet to be decided. Some 41 cases have been finalised. That shows that some Greek Cypriots, at least, are starting to despair of the possibility of a settlement.
	There has been a reduction in the number of green line crossings. They are half what they were two years ago. The sovereign base areas do not keep any statistics for the crossings, and it would be helpful if they did so to ensure that we have a full picture.
	Turkish Cypriots are increasingly claiming their political rights in the Republic. Some have tried to claim their voting rights. Sener Levent, the editor of the newspaper  Afrika, has told me that he plans to stand in the republic for one of the European Parliament seats in the summer. Cases have been brought before the European Court on the issue.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister knows that just before Christmas we had a debate on the Foreign Affairs Committee's human rights report. On that occasion, I brought to the attention of the House a number of serious human rights issues affecting Cypriots. Of course the general issues are well known; there is deprivation of property and expropriation in the north, refusal to allow people to return to their homes, and uninvestigated deaths from 1963, 1974 and many other conflicts. That is an important issue.
	I urge my right hon. Friend to go to Karpas and see the enclaved people who live there. I visited it for the second time in autumn. They are living under significant oppression in what can only be described as a police state. They have no right to own a business; their property is exposed to being appropriated; and homes are in poor condition and are sometimes knocked down when people are away. People there live in extreme poverty and destitution, and the UN has talked about the hampering of its humanitarian and monitoring efforts for the people of Karpas by the Turkish army. It is a very serious problem, and we are not taking it seriously enough. There are only a few hundred people left there, and the number is declining.
	The Maronites are also enclaved in the north. There are four Maronite villages and only 142 people left there. One village, Agia Marina, is an army camp, and visiting the church there is not allowed. I went to the barrier, and we were politely refused access. In Asomatos, people are allowed to visit the church for only a couple of hours every Sunday, and they are not allowed to ring the church bell. Visits to the churches at Agios Mamas and Morphou were not allowed, either. Apostolos Andreas in Karpas badly needs repairs, and when I went there on the night before St. Andrew's day—my day, as it were—the police had intervened to stop the bell being rung there, too. That is not appropriate.
	A whole raft of court cases brought against Turkey are working their way through the European Court. My right hon. Friend knows that I have asked parliamentary questions about that. I understand from her answers that she is not prepared to comment further while those cases are proceeding, but that is a pity. What should our Government do? Obviously we have to support the efforts of both sides. We should not get involved in the way that we did with the Annan plan; the process has to be bottom-up. It should be from the Cypriots, by the Cypriots and for the Cypriots.
	We should encourage confidence-building measures. In particular, we should put our hand in our pocket for the missing persons initiative and de-mining activities. We should consider the future of the sovereign base areas land. At the right time, we will need to give appropriate indications that the deal on offer in the Annan plan will be on offer again. We also need to look at the future of the treaty of guarantee in those circumstances.
	To conclude, if the current Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot leaders, given their long personal and political history of co-operation together, cannot achieve a result, it is unlikely that anyone will. Neither side has a plan B; that would be reverting to the status quo, which, as time goes by, simply entrenches division. Both sides need to be flexible in the process. They may well have tactical positions, but we need a breakthrough. Although we can never say that the negotiations are the last chance, if they fail, any new effort will mean starting from a far worse position. We are pretty well drinking in the last chance taverna in Cyprus, and I hope that the negotiations between two people who have good will towards each other's communities will bear fruit.

Caroline Flint: It is a pleasure to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), and I congratulate him on securing this debate. I welcome his interest in Cyprus, which is extremely wide-ranging, as I saw from the 47 parliamentary questions that he tabled before Christmas. I hope that the responses have been helpful. I think that we have one or two, or perhaps three, left to respond to. I also welcome the high level of parliamentary interest in Cyprus, which comes often, but not exclusively, from those Members with a large number of Cypriot constituents.
	As my hon. Friend said, the current round of talks are probably the best opportunity that there has ever been to solve the Cyprus problem. A solution is essential for the peace and prosperity of the whole region. First and importantly, it will create a better future for the people of Cyprus. The UN green line cuts through the island like a scar, and I think that we all agree that the division has gone on for far too long. It is in everyone's interest that the next generation does not grow up knowing only division, buffer zones and peacekeepers.
	Both communities will gain from the political, economic and social benefits of a settlement. For Greek Cypriots, a solution will offer stability and security as well as the chance to recover their property. Turkish Cypriots will be able to reach their economic potential by fully realising the advantages, and sharing the responsibilities, of EU membership. We all want Cyprus to thrive as a united country within the EU.
	In their negotiations, the two leaders, President Christofias and Mr. Talat, have an opportunity to reunite the island. The weight of history is on their shoulders, and we share with the rest of the international community an expectation that everyone with a stake in resolving the issue will remain engaged, positive and supportive, and that that very real opportunity is seized.
	We are committed in the UK to doing all that we can to assist all the parties in the process of finding a settlement for Cypriots, by Cypriots. I have made that one of my top personal priorities. Indeed, in my first week in my job, I went to Cyprus and met the leaders, as well as Alexander Downer, the UN special envoy to Cyprus. I plan to visit again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon suggested, in the next few weeks to reiterate my support for the negotiations.

Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I pay tribute to his long-standing interest and concern about the area. I visited Ankara just before Christmas, and made our views known to our Turkish colleagues about the important role that they can play in creating a positive atmosphere for those talks. Although those talks are difficult, I was pleased that shortly after assuming my post—and I am not saying that this is down to me by any stretch of the imagination—regular weekly meetings resumed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon suggested, there have been two in the past two weeks, and another is due tomorrow. Building momentum is important, and whether it is in Ankara or in Athens, or elsewhere in the EU or in the world—my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) mentioned the US in this regard earlier this week—it is about being supportive of the process and seeing how we can further ensure that the talks are successful. Turkey, as I said, has a particularly important role to play, and it has much to gain. It certainly impressed on me its positive messages, and in making those messages, we expect it to fulfil its obligations under the accession process, including on the Ankara protocol.
	In the time that is left, I shall try to address the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon. With regard to oil exploration, we have made our expectations and views clear to Turkey. We continue to urge restraint, as further escalation would be counter-productive. As a signatory to the UN convention on the law of the sea, the Republic of Cyprus is within its rights to explore for oil and natural resources in its territorial waters and exclusive economic zone. Given the heightened importance of energy security, it is in our strong interests that discussions on the energy chapter in Turkey's EU negotiations should proceed. We regret that that is not happening at present, and that some recent incidents, including the harassment of oil exploration vessels off the coast of the Republic of Cyprus, have made forward momentum more difficult. Given the current energy situation, there is a great opportunity for Turkey to demonstrate the positive role that it can play in tackling those issues.
	My hon. Friend mentioned EU funding. While implementation of the regulations has been slower than anticipated, the benefits are already being felt. Again, that is something that could be stepped up in the months ahead. I totally support confidence-building measures, which play an important role, and that is why we greatly welcomed the cancelling of military exercises and parades in October and November. However, more can be done. Crossing points have been shown to increase inter-communal dialogue and trade between local businesses. It is clearly important that communities that are no more than a few hundred metres apart, but which had little daily contact for 34 years, are opened up to each other for the benefit of all. I hope progress can soon be made on the Limnitis crossing, and that is certainly something that I shall raise when I am on the island to see whether progress can be made.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon asked about missing persons, and I can tell him that the Government fully support the work of the committee on missing persons. We donate to its budget both through the EU and directly, and hope that it can continue to work in an uninhibited way to build confidence on the island.
	It is also important that the necessary funds are found to secure the sustainability of a settlement on the island. The committee on missing persons and other issues are clearly going to be important matters for discussion in the future by the UK, the UN and the EU, as we must make sure that any settlement that might be forthcoming can be sustainable.
	I am also aware of the key work done by UN development programme staff in removing land mines in the buffer zone. That work is supported by both the Government and the EU. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, I am concerned about the shortfall in funding for the mining action centre in 2009, and I agree that its important work should continue. I have been discussing the matter here in the UK this week, and it is also due to be discussed in Brussels and in Nicosia. We will explore what might be possible, and I shall be happy to keep my hon. Friend and others informed of developments.
	I am also concerned about the continuing appropriation of, and construction on, land owned by Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus. Our high commission in Nicosia regularly raises the issue with the Turkish Cypriot leadership. We must ensure that the matter is resolved if a comprehensive settlement is to be secured.
	I am aware of the difficulties faced by Greek Cypriot communities in the northern part of Cyprus. They are living in enclaves as a result of the political situation on the island and the presence of Turkish troops in the north. I am also aware of the continued difficulties faced by the Maronite community in Cyprus. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon described some of the factors that mean that people are unable to worship or pray in their local churches, but I hope that discussing these problems will mean that we can make progress. It is really important that all Cypriots on the island feel that they have a stake in their future, and that these matters can be resolved.
	I turn now to the question of the sovereign base areas, some issues relating to which may arise during the negotiations. As I said earlier, we will be ready to discuss these at the appropriate time. The future of the treaty of guarantee will also feature in the negotiations and, as one of the guarantor powers, the UK will be ready to discuss that at the appropriate time. We will certainly not stand in the way of an agreement on this issue.
	As a result of the diaspora, there is a large Cypriot community in the UK totalling something like 300,000 people. They also have an important role to play in supporting the settlement negotiations, in which I know that they take a very keen interest. I have been in contact with a number of Cypriot diaspora groups and their media, and am committed to maintaining and developing strong relationships with both communities. That is absolutely essential.
	I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon for raising this issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton for attending the debate. Also, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Mr. Joyce) for serving on the Bench behind me. I know that he too takes an interest in these matters.
	It would be particularly helpful if all of us with an interest in this subject could work together towards the goal of a reunited island. It will not be easy, but this is an opportunity that must be seized. For my part, I look forward to discussing this further with hon. Members, and to working together in support of a settlement.
	The present financial situation and other problems mean that these are difficult times but, without being over-confident, I think that we can have some hope that progress will be made on this issue and that a division that I believe has gone on for too long for all Cypriots can be brought to an end.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.